Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE BENEFITS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to increase unemployment insurance benefits, and, if so, the nature of the increase?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I cannot at the moment add to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th November last.

Mr. Smith: May we have an assurance that this matter will not be lost sight of and that the Unemployment Statutory Committee is giving it consideration?

Mr. Brown: The committee has already considered the finance of it, and, as a matter of fact, another meeting is being held to-day.

CENTRAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGISTERS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have registered for employment on the Central Registry; the number of professional workers who are registered at his Department; and how many of the persons who have so registered have been placed in employment by his Department?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons included in the Central Register at 13th January was 86,388. The number placed up to that date was 2,775. I would point out that only a small proportion of the persons on the register are unemployed; the object of the register is to maintain a record of persons with special qualifications so that their services may be called on as and when required.
As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I assume the hon. Member is referring to the supplementary

register which is being created and to the temporary machinery set up at the outbreak of war for dealing with applications for employment from persons with professional, technical and business attainments. The number of applications received up to 16th January was 9,265 and the number placed was 130.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the very small number of people offering their services is it not evident that there is great dissatisfaction in the country and that it is due to the feeling that the Government are not making the best use of the services that are being offered?

Mr. Brown: We are putting all the energy we can into this matter. The largest proportion of applications, in London, accounts for roughly about 5,000 of them. We are setting up a separate office in London for this purpose and the matter is receiving the attention of the Office of Works.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the names taken are not just entered upon a list and forgotten, but that real action is taken to find employment for the people concerned?

Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

MEANS TEST.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of introducing provisions whereby all savings invested during the war in Defence Loans and War Savings Certificates will in the future not be taken into account under any means test for unemployment allowances?

Mr. E. Brown: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the existing provisions make substantial allowance for savings. The question whether savings of the two classes referred to should be accorded further allowance is receiving consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at the termination of this war the workers of this country will demand the abolition of the means test?

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister not aware that directly a man who is now buying War Savings Certificates becomes unem-


ployed that investment will be taken into account, and that the man will either have to sell at a poor rate of interest or will have to go short of benefit?

Mr. Brown: I will consider that qualification. I cannot read to the House the list of allowances, but if hon. Members desire to have their minds refreshed upon it I shall be very pleased to print it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Samuel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that now is the moment to encourage savings?

Mr. Brown: That applies particularly to the point which is receiving consideration. The allowance now, as a matter of fact, is limited to £300.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would it not be a fine gesture to abolish the means test now?

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the coal industry who are unemployed; and whether there is any prospect of their early employment?

Mr. E. Brown: At 11th December, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 71,683 insured persons in the coal-mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. Of this number 23,499 were only temporarily suspended from work. Employment has been temporarily affected by certain difficulties, but these are receiving attention and there is reason to hope for further improvement in the industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that these men will be employed very soon; and is it not startling that so many men should be out of work at the present time?

Mr. Brown: As I have said on many occasions, and as the hon. Member knows, many of these registrations are of elderly men in areas where pits have closed down. As long as those men remain in their local villages where pits are closed the prospects are not very bright for their reoccupation in their industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not be frank with the House

and say that the Government cannot find employment for these men?

Mr. Brown: I might as well ask the hon. Member to help me to secure that, where these men can be transferred elsewhere to get work, they should do it.

TRAWLER FISHERMEN.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice, pending the institution of more efficient protection for trawlers fishing in the North Sea, to disqualify from unemployment benefit all men of whatever age with large family responsibilities who decline seagoing employment; and whether he has considered the possibility of removing such a disqualification until some arrangements are made for the payment of adequate compensation to the families of any men injured or killed?

Mr. E. Brown: In the time available I have not been able to make the requisite inquiries, and to facilitate such inquiries I should be obliged if the hon. Member would send me particulars of any specific cases which he has in mind. I would remind him that the question whether a claim for benefit should be allowed is a matter, not for me, but for independent statutory authorities, whose duty and practice it is to take into account the relevant considerations in each individual case.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is based upon a long answer which he gave to me by correspondence and in which he invited me to put this question as a supplementary question?

Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to look further into the matter.

ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of unemployed persons drawing unemployment assistance benefit have been refused the extra grants recently made on the ground that, with these grants, the amounts paid would be above their normal earnings; and whether he will take into consideration the increased cost of living, which has led to higher wage rates which these unemployed persons would be receiving in their usual occupations?

Mr. E. Brown: The Board assure me that it is their normal practice, in determining the wage to be taken in applying the wage-stop provision, to have regard to the wage which the applicant would for the time being be likely to earn if employed, and that their officers are fully aware of the necessity of taking into consideration alterations in wage rates.

Mr. Burke: Can the Minister explain how it is that a number of cases in Burnley have been refused the special allowance, if the old wage rates are not taken into account?

Mr. Brown: I cannot do that, because that is not the question which was asked. If the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper I shall be very glad to answer the question.

Mr. Burke: Is it not obvious that the regulations were made when the cost of living was different and that they are out of date, now that the cost of living has gone up?

Mr. Brown: I am informed that the normal practice is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but I will call the attention of the Board to the suggestions which he makes.

WORKMEN'S OMNIBUS FARES (CONCESSIONS).

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the amount of the concession in the cost of omnibus fares granted to men engaged at St. Athans Royal Air Force station; to what area it is applicable; and why it is not granted to men living in Rhondda?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Mainwaring: In making that inquiry will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Rhondda men who are sent there have less advantageous conditions than are otherwise obtainable?

Mr. Brown: I have some difficulty in tracking this thing down at the moment, and I hope that the hon. Member, with his particular knowledge, will be able to help me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour what was the percentage of con scientious objectors before and after the outbreak of war, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: 1.8 per cent. of the persons registered under the Military Training Act up to the outbreak of war were provisionally registered as conscientious objectors. The corresponding figures since the outbreak of war for the registrations under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act are 2.2 per cent. for the October registration and 2.1 per cent. for the December registration.

EXEMPTION ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is possible for an arrangement to be made, whereby, in a family with four or more sons eligible for service in the Army, at least one of these may be granted exemption?

Mr. E. Brown: I have no power to grant exemption in the circumstances mentioned, but, where exceptional hardship would ensue, application may be made for postponement of the liability to be called up for service.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from cases of exceptional hardship, there is a very strong case for exemption on compassionate grounds of at least one member of a family of four; and will he give this matter his consideration?

Mr. Brown: I have no doubt whatever that the tribunal will take the facts into very serious consideration if application is made.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (WAGES OF JUVENILES).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the employers in the engineering trades have insisted upon reducing the wages of juveniles in proportion to the reduction in working hours from 47 to 44 per week as prescribed by the Factories Act; whether he is aware that, in the absence of agreement, the only normal way in


which this question can be pursued between the trade unions and the employers is by a stoppage of work, a course which the unions are reluctant to take in the present circumstances; and whether he will make representations to the employers with a view to reaching a satisfactory settlement;
(2) whether he is aware that, in accordance with Section 71 of the Factories Act, the hours of juveniles in the engineering trades have been reduced to 44 per week, but the employers have insisted upon reducing the wages in proportion, on the ground that the reduction in hours was not secured through negotiations between the parties, but through legislation; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to ensure that the juveniles shall not suffer in wages through legislative reduction in working hours?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that it is the case that the employers in the engineering industry have not seen their way to increase the hourly rates of pay of juveniles in order to compensate for the limitation of weekly hours of work imposed by the Factories Act. This would appear to be a matter for negotiation and settlement through the agreed procedure established within the industry for dealing with questions arising in connection with juvenile workers, and I would suggest that any further consideration of it should be by way of discussions between the parties concerned under that procedure.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is impossible for the agreement to operate, and is he prepared to use his influence in order to avoid what might arise out of this difference of view?

Mr. Brown: We have this particular section in mind. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know whether he has any definite suggestion to make. He will be well aware that it is very dangerous for the Ministry of Labour to intervene in such matters until asked to do so.

Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. Friend remind the employers that during the last war many firms discovered that long hours meant less production, particularly for young people?

Mr. Brown: This is not a question of more hours, but of fewer hours.

Viscountess Astor: Very long hours are worked by young people in this industry.

SEAFARERS (WAR RISK COMPENSATION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Pensions what are the arrangements now in force for the payment of compensation to men or their families in cases of injury or death by enemy action against the fishing fleet or the mercantile marine?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I have, from the outset, made special arrangements for dealing with the Mercantile Marine and the fishing fleets. All port authority officials and shipping companies are placed in direct touch with my local officers, and immediately, on report of either injury or death, my officers get in touch at once with the men concerned or their dependants, and all necessary action as regards either treatment or pension is taken. I am glad to say that I have testimony from all the port authorities to the efficiency and promptitude of the staff of my Department who have to carry out these arrangements.
Full particulars of the scheme of compensation are given in Ministry of Pensions leaflet No. 2, which has been distributed to all bodies and persons officially concerned with the Mercantile Marine and fishing fleets, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Garro Jones: While appreciating the merits of the leaflets to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I ask whether he will consider publishing them in plain and popular language for members of the Mercantile Marine and the fishing fleet, who are unacquainted with these matters and have not the facilities of ordinary members of the community for obtaining information?

Sir W. Womersley: That has not been my experience. All my people in Grimsby know about these regulations and have no difficulty in interpreting them. My view is that it is far better for my officers to go direct to the men and their dependants rather than to leave them in doubt about any regulation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in the Mercantile Marine with regard to the inadequacy of the compensation paid?

Sir W. Womersley: That is not the Question which was put on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member will put the Question down I will be glad to go into it.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether some form of temporary rent allowance can be granted to widows of sailors killed in action, as their financial position renders life impossible for them and their children, and causes acute distress; and whether he is aware that this treatment is having a deleterious effect on the morale of all concerned;
(2) whether he will take action to relieve the anxiety caused to all ranks serving in the Royal Navy at the inadequacy of the pensions granted to their widows or dependants in the event of their being killed in action, and by the feeling that they will not be properly provided for, and that the sudden stoppage of pay and allowances together with demands for refunds of any amount overpaid owing to delays in announcing deaths make conditions unnecessarily hard and add to their sufferings?

Sir W. Womersley: After the death of a man serving in the Royal Navy not only are marriage allowance and children's allowance paid to the widow for a period of 13 weeks, but also an amount equal to the qualifying allotment which the man must have declared in order to obtain such allowances. Similarly, if dependant's allowance has been awarded to a dependant other than a wife or child, such allowance with the qualifying allotment continues for 13 weeks. There are no allotments in the case of officers, but if a marriage allowance is paid in respect of an officer, it is continued for 13 weeks after the announcement of his death together with an amount equivalent to two-sevenths of his pay.
These payments following death are interim allowances paid while the widow's or dependant's entitlement to pension is being investigated. Should the pension awarded exceed the payments already

made by the Admiralty arrears are paid, but if the converse is the case, the difference is not recovered from pension. The provision thus made for meeting the needs of the period immediately following death is considered reasonable and I can find no justification for adopting the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that some form of temporary rent allowance be added to the pension payable by my Department in these cases.

Sir J. Lucas: Does the Minister not think that the reduction of £2 17s. a week to £1 a week is one of the hardships, and is he aware of the intense feeling in Portsmouth on the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to one of the skilled artificer classes who make an allotment in excess of the usual allotment. In that case the amount paid to the widow is the usual allotment and not the extra one.

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is done in a case where there has been a hardship allowance by the Hardships Committee? Is that also continued or does that stop?

Sir W. Womersley: The hardship allowance is not payable for the 13 weeks.

YOUNG OFFENDER'S IMPRISONMENT.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the case where a coloured boy was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on 10th December, his fourteenth birthday, at the Old Bailey, with a view to remitting the sentence and providing for this boy some sort of remedial treatment?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I am in full agreement with the general objections to sentences of imprisonment for young offenders, but the inquiries which I have made show that this is a wholly exceptional case. The youth concerned is in character, build and appearance more like a young man of 18 than a boy of 14. In view of this and of all the other circumstances of the case, the court came to the conclusion that he was not suitable for admission to an approved school and that the case was one which ought to be


dealt with under the special provisions of Section 52 (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. The importance of remedial treatment is fully recognised and after consultation with the judge and the prison authorities, including the medical officer, I have come to the conclusion that the best course in the youth's own interest is to let the sentence stand and to arrange that he shall receive certain special training during his term of imprisonment with a view to giving him a fresh start on his release.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this method of dealing with this boy was not adopted because he is a coloured boy?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no question of that at all and I am glad to make that point perfectly clear. The case is wholly exceptional.

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had the Bill that was promised been passed into law this would not have been possible, and would it not be well to accept the spirit of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That raises quite another matter.

FACTORIES ACT, 1937.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now issue a report showing the action which has been taken in issuing Orders under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937?

Sir J. Anderson: I am arranging to have a report prepared for issue, I hope, early next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

BLACK-OUT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to announce any further relaxation of the black-out restrictions in view of the hardships and loss they inflict on the entertainment industry and the many appeals made to him on behalf of that industry?

Sir J. Anderson: The representations received from the entertainment industry have been directed mainly towards the relaxation of restrictions on the opening of places of entertainment, and they have,

as my hon. Friend will be aware, been substantially met by the grant of general permission to remain open until 11 p.m. except in Central London, where special arrangements which allow of evening performances are in force. If my hon. Friend has the lighting restrictions in mind, he will appreciate that the entertainment industry will share in the benefit of the new type of street lighting now permissible.

Sir Herbert Williams: Do I understand from that that Herr Hitler has given an undertaking that no air raids will take place before 11 p.m.?

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the increase in the number of deaths at harbours, especially Greenock Harbour, during the period of black-out; whether he has considered the modification of the regulations dealing with lifebuoys to meet such a situation and the general changed conditions of war-time; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Sir J. Anderson: I am making inquiries into this matter, and if the information obtained as a result of these inquiries suggests that there should be some modification of the regulations regarding life-buoys I will bring the matter to the notice of the Departments concerned.

Mr. Gibson: I am obliged for the information. This matter is creating very great difficulties in Greenock and much satisfaction will be felt there at the answer given.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at some of the coast towns, towns which are completely blacked out, ships out in the bays are lit up in a way which defeats the object of the black-out—Rothesay, in Scotland, for instance?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE, LONDON.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with regard to the resignations from the Auxiliary Fire Service, London; and whether he has made any inquiry into the grievances that have led to these resignations?

Sir J. Anderson: I am informed by the London County Council that the statements which have appeared in the Press regarding the number of these resignations are incorrect; and in any event resignations do not necessarily arise from grievances, as suggested in the Question. I understand, however, that the London County Council are conducting a comprehensive inquiry into the organisation of the Auxiliary Fire Service and the other Civil Defence services of the Council.

Miss Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that resignations do not necessarily arise from grievances? In this case not only did the resignation arise from grievances but a schedule of those grievances was put in. The question I asked was whether those grievances have been considered.

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Lady must realise that her Question referred to resignations in general and not to any particular resignation. As I pointed out in my reply, the matter is one primarily for the London County Council.

Mrs. Tate: Is it not a fact that a large number of women concerned have found it impossible to get on with the man at the head of affairs?

AIR-RAED PRECAUTIONS (PERSONNEL).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the protest from the West Bromwich Town Council against the decision to enforce a working week of 72 hours in the air-raid precautions services; and whether he has any statement to make?

Sir J. Anderson: The conditions of service in the Civil Defence organisation cannot be determined by analogy with industrial conditions, and, as I have already informed the council, I cannot see my way to agree to any departure from standard conditions for whole-time personnel in these services.

AIR-RAID WARNINGS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he will adopt a different air-raid warning equal in volume to the present warning but less depressing in tone?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The present arrangements were settled after much

experiment, and to alter them now would be neither practicable nor, I think, desirable.

Viscountess Astor: Does my right hon. Friend not think that if the only thing that depresses the people who stay at home is the air-raid warning they are doing very well?

STREET LIGHTING.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many local authorities are refusing to instal the restricted street lighting now authorised owing to the heavy cost involved; and will he regard such expenditure as eligible for air-raid precautions expenditure grant?

Sir J. Anderson: The installation of the new type of lighting will not impose an unduly heavy charge on local authorities, particularly if account is taken of the considerable savings which many authorities will have made during the period when no street lighting was allowed and also of the substantial reduction in the cost of the gas or electricity required for the new lighting as compared with that required for normal street lighting. I regret that I cannot regard expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing street lighting as eligible to rank for air-raid precautions grant.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in point of fact, local authorities are deciding that they cannot afford this expenditure, and that many districts are deprived of this lighting as a result; and in view of the danger involved in being on the roads at night will he consider trying to meet that position?

Mr. Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend consider publishing a message to those authorities, if any, who have refused to adopt this improved lighting?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not had brought to my notice so far any considerable number of cases of local authorities having taken up the attitude suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I will bear in mind the suggestion.

Sir Percy Harris: Have not local authorities saved a great deal in lighting expenditure owing to the reduction of general street lighting? Does not that compensate them for this expenditure?

Sir J. Anderson: That is what I said in my answer.

Mr. Burke: asked the Home Secretary why local authorities who are desirous of instituting a modified form of street lighting, and who have purchased lamp fittings made according to the Government standards, are prevented from using these lamps; and when can makers of such lamps expect to receive British standards institute certification marks?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not heard of any such difficulty. The British Standards Institution inform me that every maker who has applied to them for a licence to mark fittings for the new form of street lighting has already been granted a licence.

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Burnley authority ordered some of these lamps from a particular firm in London, to be made according to requirements, and they cannot get them because the firm say that they cannot get the Standards Institution to give certificates?

Sir J. Anderson: That is not my information.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter if I send him particulars?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL POSITION).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of local authorities have heavy bank overdrafts due mainly to the non-payment of Government grants in respect of Civil Defence; and will he take steps to expedite payment?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion. Arrangements are in force to make interim grant payments when local authorities apply for them. Applications are dealt with expeditiously, but there has been delay on the part of authorities in rendering claims.

Mr. Ammon: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that he cannot accept this statement? Is he not aware that in the Press it has been announced that local authorities are out of pocket by as much

as £100,000 in one case and £50,000 and £20,000 in other cases?

Sir J. Anderson: That is absolutely not the case. For example, out of 700 claims which might have been made by local authorities for the quarter ended 31st December only 241 claims have been received. Special arrangements have been made for dealing with claims promptly. The figures are practically the same for the fire service.

Mr. Ammon: How is it that it is stated in the Press that Wandsworth are £100,000 down, Lambeth £20,000 down, and Camberwell £50,000 down?

MOTOR HEADLAMPS.

Mr. Levy: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increased traffic fatalities, he will reconsider his decision not to permit the use of two shaded headlamps so as to improve the vision of drivers; and whether he will take steps to impress upon pedestrians, by broadcast and otherwise, the necessity of exercising the utmost care in crossing the road in view of the gravely reduced range of observation for motorists?

Sir J. Anderson: I am anxious to take all practicable steps to lessen the number of traffic fatalities, but as I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, the simultaneous use of two headlamps would very greatly increase the amount of light upon the road as affecting visibility from the air. I am not satisfied that the advantage to the driver would be such as to justify this additional risk; and I think it will be desirable first to see what improvement in driving conditions is produced by the decision to make the use of the new type of headlamp mask compulsory, as from Monday next. Opportunities are frequently taken to impress upon all road users the need for the exercise of the utmost care in present conditions, but I will certainly consider with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport what further action can be taken on these lines.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the motorists find it exceedingly difficult to see pedestrians and all that is going on in the black-out, and that this experimental lighting gives the pedestrians a false sense of security and therefore is likely to add to the casualties on the road?

Sir J. Anderson: I think these are matters of opinion, but I do not agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that pedestrians shall not be prohibited from using the roads?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Does my right hon. Friend realise that pedestrians still absolutely refuse to understand that they are not visible; and, in view of the terrible casualties that are taking place, will he arrange with the B.B.C. to make a short announcement at least every night for a fortnight, pointing out to the people that they cannot be seen, and that it is incumbent upon all pedestrians to take every step possible to realise that fact?

Sir J. Anderson: I certainly think that some share of responsibility does rest upon pedestrians, and I will consider with my right hon. Friend whether anything can be done.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Air to have some tests made from the air?

SILICOSIS (SLATE MINES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether the new order applying the Various Industries Silicosis Scheme to workers in slate mines will provide for compensation to be paid to workers in mines disabled by silicosis, and who had ceased work prior to the date on which the order became operative?

Sir J. Anderson: The amending scheme made on the 1st December does not, and I am advised could not, apply to workmen employed in underground operations before but not after that date. Some at any rate of those men may, however, be covered by the Various Industries Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter up again with the employers in the industry? Does he realise that the hardship is caused because these men are suffering from something which is dealt with by the very order. Will he reconsider the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: As I have explained, I am advised that I have no power under the Statute to apply this scheme retrospectively.

Mr. Griffiths: While I appreciate that, is it not possible outside the Statute for the right hon. Gentleman to take it up with the employers? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it up with the employers?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly; if there is a precedent I will see if it can be applied.

WAR CHARITIES.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary when he expects to introduce a War Charities Bill?

Sir J. Anderson: This matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgently necessary to check the activities of bogus charities which are taking advantage of members of the public?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know that there is any considerable evil, but the matter has been under close consideration for some time past and I hope to be able to say something at a very early date.

NIGHT BAKING.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the copy of the resolution unanimously passed on 12th December, 1939, by the chapter of the rural deanery of Wolverhampton and sent to him about night baking; and what action does he propose to take?

Sir J. Anderson: I have considered this resolution, which urges the abolition of night baking. This proposal, which has been fully considered on numerous occasions, could not be put into effect without legislation which would, I am advised, be highly controversial; and I do not think that such new factors have arisen as would justify the introduction of such legislation at the present time.

Mr. Hannah: Cannot anything be done about it, because it seems to be a very live issue in Wolverhampton?

Mr. Mander: Would the Home Secretary be good enough to bear in mind that Wolverhampton is entirely united on this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: There is some evidence of disunity, even in Wolverhampton.

Mr. Banfield: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any information from his inspectors about the recent inquiries which he promised should be made concerning the heat of bakehouses?

Sir J. Anderson: Instructions were issued immediately after the promise was made, but I have not yet had any report.

POLICE AUTHORITIES (RESERVISTS' PAY).

Captain Conant: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the lack of uniformity as between public authorities in making up the pay of police Reservists recalled to the colours; and what steps he proposes to take to secure similarity of treatment?

Sir J. Anderson: This is a matter which Parliament has left to the discretion of the individual police authorities. I am aware that a few police authorities have decided not to make up the pay of Reservists recalled to the colours, but there is no action which I could take to secure uniformity of treatment.

Captain Conant: Will my right hon. Friend publish a list of the authorities and inform those who are not making up the pay that the great majority of other authorities are much more generous in their treatment of the reservists?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. When Parliament leaves discretion to local authorities it must be assumed that that discretion shall be real.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the failure of the Government to make the appropriate grant in these cases brought about this lack of uniformity?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The Home Office makes the appropriate grant in all cases.

Captain Conant: If the local authorities against whom complaint is made knew what others were doing perhaps they would change their minds. In the in-

terests of uniformity could not the authorities be informed?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the authorities will take note of these questions.

PACIFIST PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether all pacifist propaganda is considered suspicious by his Department; and, if not, what section of the movement demanding peace is so considered?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. A clear distinction can, and I think should, be drawn between a philosophy of pacifism which may be inspired by the highest motives, and certain forms of pacifist propaganda the origins and motives of which are open to suspicion. It is obviously the duty of my Department to keep a watch on the propaganda of organisations which, for their own ends, advocate a policy diametrically opposed to the declared policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific, in view of the very general statement that he made in public only a few days ago?

Sir J. Anderson: I think hon. Members who, from all quarters of the House, have brought to my notice peace propaganda leaflets of various kinds will have no difficulty in understanding what I have in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would it not be a good idea if there was some generally accepted meaning of the word "pacifist" agreed upon by all sections?

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF BEDFORDSHIRE.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary the nature of any previous police experience of Commander the Honourable R. D. Coleridge, R.N., retired, who was recently appointed chief constable of Bedfordshire; the date and circumstances under which he was retired from the Navy; whether the appointment is in accordance with the statutory regulations made under the Police Act, 1919; and whether he has approved of such appointment?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that Commander Coleridge, who has not had previous police experience, served in the Royal Navy from 1919 to 1939, when he retired on medical grounds. I have already informed the standing joint committee that, on the information before me, I am unable to regard the appointment as satisfying the terms of Regulation 9 of the Police Regulations, and that I am, therefore, unable to approve it.

SUMMER-TIME.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the public desire to ascertain the earlier date at which summer-time will be introduced, he can now announce the date; and whether, during June and July he will advance the clock two hours instead of one?

Sir J. Anderson: As I stated on Tuesday, an announcement as to the date for the introduction of summer-time will be made as soon as possible. As regards the second part of the Question, on the information at present before me, I do not know of any reason for modifying the view which has hitherto been accepted that the inconveniences of a second change in the clock would outweigh any advantages.

Mr. Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are not living in normal circumstances, and is he further aware that by adopting my second suggestion we could for two months of the year eliminate the black-out from the daily lives of 80 per cent. of our fellow citizens?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that during the two months in question the sun goes a long way towards doing that. The advantages of summer-time are most marked in the spring and autumn.

Mr. Adams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as early as 11th February the sun will rise as early as it did when we stopped summer-time in November last?

Sir J. Anderson: Not all over the country.

WINE MERCHANTS (LICENSED HOURS).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Home Secretary whether, in

view of the exceptional conditions now prevailing, which make it difficult for the members of the public to get their shopping done, he will consider the abolition of the afternoon break period of three hours when sales by wine merchants over the counter of wines, beers and spirits for home consumption are prohibited?

Sir J. Anderson: This proposal would involve legislation amending the Licensing Act so as to allow sales of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises to take place outside the permitted hours, which under the existing law apply to "off" sales as well as to sales for consumption on the premises. I can hold out no prospect of legislation on this subject at the present time.

Sir A. Southby: Is there any reason why wine merchants should be more unfairly treated than any other merchants in the community?

Viscountess Astor: Is the reason not that theirs is the only commodity of which the Government have to restrict the sale because it is dangerous?

REGISTERED CLUBS (POLICE RAIDS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary how many raids have been made on clubs in London since the 1st September; how many people were arrested; what was the result of the courts' decisions; and whether any of the clubs were named workmen's clubs?

Sir J. Anderson: Since 1st September, 1939, 20 registered clubs in the Metropolitan Police District have been entered by the police in pursuance of warrants under either the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, or the Gaming Act, 1845, or both. In seven of these cases where there were contraventions of the Gaming Act arrests were made and the total number of persons arrested was 91–83 being in one club. In seven of the 20 cases convictions have been obtained and penalties amounting in all to £675 were imposed: proceedings are still pending in the other 13 cases. None of these clubs was specifically described as a workmen's club.

NATIONAL FITNESS COUNCIL.

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what


steps have been taken to find employment for the staffs of the area committees of the National Fitness Council, who were dismissed on the discontinuance of the work of the council; and how many of the staffs are still unemployed?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The names and qualifications of all the secretaries and assistant secretaries of the area committees who wished to be considered for Government employment were submitted to the Treasury and to the Ministry of Labour, and the Board of Education have continually taken steps to bring to the notice of other Departments the names of individuals among them who seemed suitable for particular vacancies that have arisen. Five of the 22 secretaries and 16 of the 42 assistant secretaries are still, so far as is known to the Board, without employment. I have no information about the numbers of the subordinate staff of the area committees who may be unemployed, though I understand that a number of them have been placed through the instrumentality of the Board.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his hon. Friend to the long delay which has taken place in the employment of these people, and especially of the very large number of subordinates?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, Sir.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Government promise us that they will never again set up such a sham thing as the National Fitness Council?

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will take all steps within his power to prevent children of school age not attending school owing to the emergency from entering employment?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The situation to which the hon. Member refers would be remedied if the law of school attendance were operative in the evacuation areas. This is a matter which the Government have under active consideration.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to call the attention of his hon. Friend to the fact that, in evacuation areas, where boys and girls have not attended school for four or five months, it is quite possible for a number of them to be in employment by this time; and also, is it possible for the Board to issue a circular to local authorities calling attention to this possibility?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I will explain to my hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend represent to his hon. Friend the importance of opening the schools at the earliest possible moment in order to bring to an end the present scandal of boys running adrift in the streets?

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Member draw the attention of his hon. Friend to the fact that it is not only in evacuation areas where the problem is acute, and that in some of the neutral areas affairs are almost as bad?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: What about the position in the reception areas?

LOCATION OF INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister whether the report of the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of Industry has been received; and whether it is intended to publish the report?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The signed report has been received and is now being printed off. It will be published as soon as copies are available.

FOOD RATIONING.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early day for a debate on the general scheme of food rationing before the introduction of any further compulsory rationing of commodities?

The Prime Minister: Any decision to extend the range of the foodstuffs included in the present rationing scheme would be communicated to the House at the earliest


possible date, when no doubt an opportunity could be found for debate on the matter if the House so desired.

MINISTERS' PUBLIC STATEMENTS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to the Press censorship now obtaining, there is any censorship of public statements or broadcasts by Ministers so far as reference is made to troop movements of the Home or Empire forces?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; such matters are left to the discretion of Ministers.

Miss Wilkinson: Is there a Cabinet row when one gives a certain amount of information before the other man expected it to be announced?

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister when he expects the President of the Board of Trade will be available to answer Questions in this House?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to name a date when my right hon. Friend will be available to answer Questions in this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is very desirable that so important a Minister should be present in the House to answer Questions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think I may say I do appreciate that.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the arrangement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SHORT-TERM CREDITS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state what steps have been taken to ensure sufficient short-term credits at low rates of interest to farmers to enable them to meet war-time expenditure for extra cultivation?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I hope to be able to amplify the statement which I made on the 14th December at an early date.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is decision and not delay that is wanted; and further, how can he expect the farmers to double the output of the land if they do not have the necessary credit facilities, why should they be worse treated than any other industry in this country, and will be look into the matter at the earliest possible moment?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think that the hon. Member will agree that we have really made some progress.

ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make some statement of the Government's intentions regarding schemes for the rationing of animals foodstuffs?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The examination of various proposals for the rationing of animal feeding stuffs is still proceeding, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement of the Government's intentions in this matter.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this matter is an absolute disgrace, that poultry farmers and pig farmers are unable to keep their stocks, and that something must be done for them? Day after day I keep at this and nothing is done.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the tremendous slaughtering of poultry and pigs which is now taking place, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, until we can have animal rationing, there shall be some control of slaughtering county by county, so as not to have a complete slaughtering now and a complete dearth later on?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The hon. Lady should not exaggerate the situation. So far as the other question is concerned, if the hon. Member himself will really sit down and examine this problem, he will realise how complex it is, and then I do not think that he will be quite so vehement.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of barley for animal feeding he will ration the amount of barley for breweries?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The matter is under discussion with representatives of the brewing industry and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Viscountess Astor: Might I ask the Prime Minister, who has said he does not care what unpopular thing he does in order to win the war, whether he will do another unpopular thing and have a good supply of food instead of a good supply of drink?

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements he proposes to make to ensure that existing supplies of animal feeding-stuffs are equitably distributed to farmers, and are used for the maintenance of those classes of livestock to which he wishes to give preference?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Available supplies of imported feeding stuffs are being allocated to distributors in proportion to their pre-war trade and they have been asked to distribute them to their farmer customers as equitably as possible. The statement of Government policy with regard to livestock and feeding stuffs issued on 22nd November—a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member—was communicated to the distributive trade by the Ministry of Food and they were asked to follow the principles enunciated in that announcement in the distribution of the limited supplies available to them. I am advised that this request has been generally observed. Further proposals are under consideration with a view to improving the efficiency of the machinery of distribution and, in particular, to overcome the difficulties caused by diversion of cargoes.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister think that farmers who have dealt with several merchants for their feeding stuffs have a great advantage without any rationing scheme, as they are able to get a certain amount from each firm with which they are dealing? Is he not aware of the great injustice there is in the supply of feeding stuffs to individual farmers, an

injustice which cannot be met without some scheme of rationing?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Obviously we cannot get complete equality without some scheme of rationing.

Viscountess Astor: Should not some system have been brought in a long time ago?

SEED OATS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of seed oats for spring planting are available in all counties?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the grave danger of a shortage of seed oats to sow the increased acreage of land, he will immediately purchase supplies so that their equitable distribution may be assured?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The situation has been, and is being, kept under close review by the Ministry's Seeds Advisory Committee and it was after consultation with that body that the decision was taken and announced on 12th January to leave the market for seed oats free as regards price. The National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants and the Agricultural Seed Trade Association have given an assurance that they will use their good offices generally to ensure a free flow and an adequate supply of seed oats at a reasonable price and, in particular, that they will co-operate with the agricultural departments and the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and of Scotland in taking steps to relieve the situation in any area where prices are found to be disproportionately high. Owing to delays in threshing, large quantities of oats suitable for seed are in stacks on farms. County war agricultural executive committees have been asked to take steps to expedite the threshing of oats in their areas and I have no reason to anticipate that sufficient quantities of oats to meet all requirements for seed will not now be forthcoming. At the same time, as a measure of insurance, arrangements have been made for the purchase from overseas of a moderate quantity of oats suitable for seed which will be held in reserve.

Mr. Roberts: Is not that the sort of way that the feeding-stuffs positron was


handled until it became very acute? Is there not some way of securing adequate supplies of oats so that the Government can purchase the supplies and have them available? Otherwise they are going to be used up for feeding purposes before seeding time.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would not agree with that. I think a great deal of harm might be done if the Government now tried to enter the seed market.

WAGES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural wages committees have increased wages since August last; and how many awards are up to £2 per week minimum for a male adult worker?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Since August last, 41 of the 47 agricultural wages committees in England and Wales have increased the minimum rates of wages in force in their areas, and five others have given notice of proposals to make increases. A minimum weekly wage of 40s. or more is applicable to ordinary adult male workers in three areas.

Mr. Smith: Can the Minister say what excuse these agricultural workers committees have given for not increasing wages in those areas and does he not think, now there is such a small number drawing 40s. a week, that it is rather a sad reflection on the Government's agricultural policy?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid the fixing of wages is in the hands of the county committees. One county committee which has not increased wages since August was Gloucestershire, which, however, in July issued a proposal to increase the minimum rates and on 9th September finally decided on the proposed increases which became effective as from 24th September. The Committee are meeting to consider again the minimum rates in its area on 6th February.

Mr. T. Williams: When is the National Farmers' Union likely to agree to the establishment of a central wages board?

FARM WORKERS AND MILITARY SERVICE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the parish of Albrighton, Shropshire, a farm is half derelict because its chief

worker is in camp; that discontent is growing in agricultural communities over the conscription of farm workers; and will he consider, in the interests of food production and in order to facilitate complying with Government orders about ploughing, the advisability of making agriculture a reserved occupation, irrespective of age?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The question of the appropriate age of reservation for men engaged in agriculture has already received the Government's careful consideration and has been the subject of consultation with representatives of employers and employés in the industry. As my hon. Friend will be aware the age of reservation for farmers and most classes of farm workers is 21, so that in existing circumstances the only men in agricultural occupations who will be called up for compulsory military service are those of the 20-year-old group. In addition, there are arrangements whereby the calling up of men for military service can be postponed in cases of special difficulty in order to prevent the dislocation of farming operations. The Government does not consider it to be desirable that, by a further reduction in the age of reservation, agriculture should be placed in a position in which it would make no contribution in man power to the needs of the Armed Forces even though in existing circumstances its contribution must be a relatively small one. I am not aware of the particular case referred to in the Question, but if my hon. Friend will send me details, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. W. Roberts: Can the Minister tell me whether in the few cases where an owner farmer does happen to be called up it is possible for representations to be made to have him released from the Army?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Cases have to be treated on their merits.

POULTRY INDUSTRY (FOODSTUFFS).

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make any further statement on the provision of foodstuffs for poultry keepers and pig producers; and what percentage of normal crops it is intended such producers shall receive?

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can


now give any definite information as to what the poultry industry may hope to obtain in the matter of feeding-stuffs up to the end of April next?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken to ensure that specialist poultry-keepers are receiving a fair share of available supplies of feeding-stuffs?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the widespread shortage of feeding-stuffs for poultry; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation, which is causing ruin among poultry farmers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Government announced on 22nd November that in view of the primary importance of maintaining milk and meat supplies and of the value of cattle and sheep in preserving the fertility of the soil, the economies in imported feeding stuffs necessitated by the demands on our shipping for essential war materials would have to be secured in the main by a reduction in the supplies of feeding stuffs available for the pig and poultry industries. I am well aware that in the period of shortage through which we have passed these industries—especially those producers who grow little or none of their feeding stuff requirements—have suffered very considerable hardship. I am happy to say that there is a material improvement in the supply position which is likely to be maintained during the next two or three months. Every effort is being made by the Government to ensure equitable distribution of the available supplies throughout the country, notwithstanding the difficulties arising from diversion of cargoes, and in particular arrangements are being made which will enable special consideration to be given to cases where acute shortage might result in the reduction of foundation poultry breeding stock. Some hardship, I am afraid, is inevitable, but every possible effort is being made to mitigate it.

Mr. T. Williams: May I suggest that as there are so many thousands of ex-service specialist poultry dealers in this country, unless the Ministry are prepared to take steps to ensure that they receive a fair share of available supplies arable farmers will produce some of their own

feeding stuffs and leave the specialist poultry dealers without feeding stocks at all?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We are taking all possible steps regarding the allocation of supplies and everything is being done to see that they get a fair crack of the whip in accordance with the Government's policy.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it true that preference in the matter of supplies is being given to members of the accredited poultry breeding scheme while reputable breeders who are not members of the scheme do not receive this favourable treatment?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: A request was made to the chairman of the county feeding stuffs committee and the Ministry of Food that they should do all practicable to ensure that there are supplies of food for poultry stocks, and their attention was drawn to the accredited scheme since members participating in that scheme were only breeders of whom the Ministry have definite and comprehensive records as possessing sound breeding stock. The arrangements I have indicated in my reply as regards cases of shortage will apply generally to breeders of sound foundation stock and will not be limited to accredited breeders.

Sir W. Wayland: What percentage of reduction does the Minister consider will be necessary in regard to poultry producers during the next two or three months? That will give some indication as to the number of birds they will be able to feed.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is impossible to give an accurate estimate because of certain things that might happen at sea. It might be very misleading to try and give a more definite figure than I gave in my statement.

Sir T. Moore: How are poultry keepers to know what birds to keep alive? That is the position to-day.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, taking the latest available date, he can now state the number of ploughed-up acres which have qualified for receipt of the Government subsidy in Scotland and England, respectively?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Applications for the grant of £2 per acre for ploughing up of seven year grassland covering approximately 850,000 acres in England and Wales, and 230,000 acres in Scotland, have been received. Applications continue to be received in substantial numbers. Generally speaking, the grant is not payable until the County War Executive Committee has certified that the lands have been ploughed up and that the other conditions attaching to the grant have been complied with. The county committees are now actively engaged in inspecting the lands in respect of which the grant applications have been made, but it is not yet possible to give the information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Sir T. Moore: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in the circumstances the subsidy is a sufficient inducement?

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman confident that there is sufficient seed for the acreage which will he ploughed up?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have given an answer on that point.

Viscountess Astor: Yes, but it is so involved that nobody can understand it.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of grassland have been ploughed up since the outbreak of war to the latest date for which figures are available?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I regret that I am not in a position to state the area of grassland actually ploughed up since the outbreak of war.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the acreage scheduled for ploughing in each of the areas under the control of the county war agricultural executives together with the acreage alloted to each for ploughing?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As the second set of figures which the hon. Member has in mind represents only the minimum addition to the tillage area to be secured by each committee by the ploughing up of grassland in their county, I do not think it desirable to publish figures at this stage.

Mr. T. Williams: When will the Minister be able to discriminate between scheduled

acres and actual acres which has been ploughed up?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We do not want to put on county committees the job of giving more and more returns.

Mr. Williams: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get quarterly returns?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We will try to get the information as soon as possible.

Mr. Thorne: Why do you not take steps to make farmers plough up the land?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is such a thing as the weather.

HOUSING.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have made application to him since 1st September, 1939, for sanction to make advances to persons desiring to purchase houses under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1923; how such applications have been disposed of by him; and whether he is continuing to encourage this movement without interruption during the war?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I have no record of the number of applications received but during the three months ended 31st December, 1939, I gave consents to loans amounting in all to more than £250,000 to enable 67 local authorities to make advances promised by them under the Acts. I am not satisfied that there is any general demand for such advances at present and I cannot undertake to encourage local authorities to make them, in view of the Government's policy with regard to the use of capital by local authorities. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by the Treasury in this connection.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MILK).

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulties now operating in many districts against the establishment of the


milk schemes for mothers and children; and whether he is now in a position to state the milk policy of the Government on this problem?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that difficulties have arisen in some areas. I regret I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mrs. Adamson: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to take some steps to give effect to this important matter?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: What happens where milk businesses in an area refuse to distribute milk on the terms indicated in this scheme? Will the Minister provide the local authority with power to buy from the Milk Marketing Board and establish their own scheme?

Mr. Elliot: It is in view of that particular difficulty that consideration is now proceeding.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ANNUAL HEALTH RETURNS).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now providing for the annual health returns from county and local authorities to distinguish between those of evacuated persons in reception and neutral areas and those of the true popuation of such areas?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I should be unwilling in present circumstances to impose additional requirements upon local authorities in making these returns, and the forms used in previous years have in fact been modified with a view to saving work to local authorities. Moreover, other movements of population than that of persons officially evacuated under the Government evacuation scheme have taken, and are taking, place; and I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine what should be regarded as the true population of an area.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will not this vitiate the whole series of extremely important statistics so far as the Ministry is concerned?

Mr. Elliot: It is true that it will make them more difficult to interpret.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Would the Prime Minister state the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: On Tuesday, 23rd January: Second Reading of the Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Claims and Refugees) Bill; and Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution; the subject of Road Accidents will be debated on the Adjournment.
Wednesday, 24th January: Committee stage and further consideration of the Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Claims and Refugees) Bill; the India and Burma (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill [Lords], and the Gas and Steam Vehicles (Excise Duties) Bill; the question of Shop Hours will be debated on the Adjournment.
Thursday, 25th January: A Debate on Agriculture will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will not sit on Friday.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONAL LOANS.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the power of the Treasury to make rules under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the National Loans Act, 1939.
This is the short Bill to which I referred when I made an announcement yesterday of the intention to pay off the 4½ per cent. issue of ££350,000,000 or thereabouts, on the 1st July next and to offer to substitute a new issue at the rate of 2 per cent. I am glad to know that the first reception of that proposal has been universally favourable, both in the Press this morning and also, as I am informed, according to the always sensitive barometer of the gilt-edged market. The reason for asking the House to pass this Bill, I hope in all its stages to-day, is because it deals with the powers of the Treasury to make rules in connection with the exchange of such securities. The necessity for the Bill arises from the fact that there is some doubt as to whether our existing powers to make regulations cover the present case. The provisions of the proposed Bill will empower the Treasury in connection with the issue of a new security which will be offered in exchange


for an old security, to make rules for requiring the holders of the securities that are to be redeemed who desire to receive payment in cash in respect of their holdings on the date fixed, 1st July, to make an application on that behalf in accordance with the rules and for securing that if they make no such application they shall be deemed, subject to the provisions of the rules, to have accepted the offer.
It is necessary to make such provision for several reasons. It is very desirable, and I think necessary, to make sure that the Treasury know before 1st July what is the amount of cash that must be found at the redemption date. I hope and expect that in this case the amount will not be very large. It is also very desirable and necessary to avoid the Treasury having to find the cash and pay out to individuals who, because of mere inertia, have failed to make the communication, but who nevertheless are perfectly willing to accept the offer if it does not involve some positive exertion. We have to be sure that it is done with perfect fairness to all concerned. Such an offer has to be fully explained, as I did yesterday; it has been announced in the newspapers, and explained on the wireless, and we have posted to every registered and inscribed holder a prospectus giving full information. There is no possibility of unfairness.
It is desired that the Bill should be a Bill which gives the Treasury this power not only for this issue, but in general terms, because I think it is manifest that where the Government offer to convert they should, subject, of course, to a proper interval of notice, have the machinery to make sure either that the situation that results from the conversion is largely accepted, or, on the other hand, that the holders who wish to claim to be paid in cash have the right to do so. It is for these reasons that I have asked leave to introduce the Bill, and if the House gives me that permission, I hope we may proceed to the Second Reading, on which any further necessary observations can be made, and that the remaining stages of the Bill may be taken to-day.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As we have been asked to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day and as the Chancellor has made his explanation at this stage, I take it that it will be convenient for those who wish to say a few words to do so now.
The Bill is a modest one, and it deals mainly with a technical point, namely, whether those who do not express any preference should be assumed to have concurred in the conversion of their holding from its present form into the new form which the Chancellor is offering. I think it is a wise proceeding that the Treasury should take advantage of what the Chancellor has called inertia, or I would call friction, for the benefit of the nation. Curious though it may seem, there is a large number of people who do not trouble to express themselves one way or the other and it is quite a good thing that those people should be assumed to have accepted the Chancellor's offer.
I should like to say a few words, however, on the larger question of the Conversion Scheme with which this Bill is incidentally concerned. In the first place, I am glad that this opportunity has arisen for putting a figure upon short to medium term rates of interest, and I am glad that the Chancellor has seen fit to take advantage of it in the way he has done. Before the outbreak of war and since the outbreak of war, hon. Members on these benches have consistently and persistently pointed out the great importance of a low rate of interest on loans borrowed for the prosecution of the war. I am happy to think that that view has been supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Therefore, in putting forward these proposals, the Chancellor is assured in advance of the support of the House, and that foreknowledge of support has enabled him—I will not say pushed him—to put forward these proposals. I am glad that the figure of 2 per cent. has been selected rather than the 2½ per cent. which prevailed up to the outbreak of war; and I hope this rate of 2 per cent. is a pointer to the rate which will be offered when issues of large new loans are made. I need hardly say that when money is borrowed for the prosecution of the war, the rate makes all the difference in the world. During the last war, the rates ran up until they reached 6 per cent., and even over 6 per cent. after the war was over, and in consequence the country is loaded down to-day with the enormous charges which have been one of the Chancellor's severe problems since the last war. If we can get through this war with a different scale of rates from those which prevailed during the last war, the burden which future Chancellors will have to meet


will still be exceedingly heavy, but it will not be such, I hope, as to break the back of the taxpayers of the country in the days that are to come.
There is one further observation I desire to make. With this rate of interest on short to medium term loans there is closely bound up the rate of interest on day-to-day money on which the Treasury Bill rate is ultimately based. The conversion which the Chancellor is making is of course from a 4½ per cent. loan of a comparatively long period to a 2 per cent. short to medium term loan; and that 2 per cent. rate is really comparable with 2½ per cent. on the existing National Defence Loan which is for a somewhat similar term. What is happening is that the Chancellor, quite properly in my opinion, and to the benefit of the Treasury and the country, is really reducing the rate on short to medium term loans from 2½ per cent. to 2 per cent. I want to contrast this with the fact that the cost of Treasury Bills has gone up since the war began from a little over ½ per cent, to a little over 1 per cent. I am aware that this matter is not wholly within the Chancellor's control. But the Bank of England rate, the rate which the Joint Stock banks give to their depositors, and the price of call money are all matters which, although not nominally controlled by the Chancellor directly, are in that kind of no-man's land where the Chancellor has, if not direct control, a great deal of influence. In view of the action which the Chancellor is taking on this other matter at the present time, an action which is supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use that influence which he possesses to bring about a reduction in the price of day-to-day money and so lower the cost of Treasury Bills. Having made those remarks, there is nothing further I need add, except to say that my advice to my hon. Friends is that they should give support to the proposals of this Bill, and that I shall offer no objection to all its stages being taken to-day.

Mr. Graham White: This is no doubt an opportunity to remove any doubts about technicalities, and the Bill should proceed through all its stages as soon as possible. These considerations are not likely to influence the opinion of the House or of the public either one way or

the other with regard to the conversion operations. It is proper that power should be taken to make definite rules on these technical points, and I should imagine that it is unlikely that many people, either through indifference or inadvertence, would neglect to take the necessary steps. There is one other point besides that of inadvertence or inertia to which I should like to call attention, which I hope may be taken into account in framing the rules. In the circumstances in which we live, it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain the completion of transactions, especially in the case of joint holdings. There are many people who are out of the country now, serving in His Majesty's Forces or serving the country in some other way, and in the case of joint holdings it is very difficult to get the necessary co-operation and assent to transactions. The point that I would like to make is this, that when the rules are framed, I hope sufficient elasticity will be retained, on proper cause being shown, to see that the wishes of the various people, although they may be ascertained a little beyond the particular date appointed, may be taken into account. That is a small point which in ordinary times might not be very important, but at present, when so many people are serving in out-of-the-way places, it might lead to inconvenience and possibly to some injustice.

Sir J. Simon: There are residents overseas, there are holders serving in the field, and there is the case of joint but separate trustees. I had observed that, and I had intended to say, and I say now, that the House may be assured that any applications for repayment which for any reason are delayed beyond the day appointed for closing the lists will receive sympathetic treatment.

Mr. White: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. It only remains to say, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on these benches, that we cordially approve the proposals for conversion to which this Bill is preliminary. It seems to us that they are well conceived in the public interest, and further, because they are conceived in the public interest, they preserve the rights of all holders of the securities to be converted, and they probably fulfil all the reasonable anticipations of these holders.


I think there is no doubt whatever that they will all be willing, in every possible case, to play their part in this initial stage of our war finance. I do not feel any doubt about that in my own mind. I think they really wish to receive direction and a lead from the Chancellor.
In reference to what was said by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I feel with him that it is only on these lines that we can so conduct our war finance that, when the war is over, we shall be left with National Debt of manageable proportions which it will be possible for the nation to bear. I have no doubt these are the lines on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to proceed. I do not need to point out that this is not the only opportunity that there will be of effecting savings in this direction. If I remember rightly, in the National Loans Bill which we passed last Session provision was taken to enable an exchange of securities to be made at or before maturity, and no doubt when the proper time comes for a major war loan to be issued, an opportunity may be given to the holders of the £322,000.000 of 5 per cent. Conversion Loan to co-operate with the Treasury, on appropriate terms, which may lead to a further saving of interest. This proposal does effect a saving of interest which, even with the gigantic figures in which we now have to consider our national finance, is a matter of moment, and there may be further opportunities for making savings as time goes on. It only remains for me to express the hope and belief that this operation, the first major financial operation of the war, will be a complete success.

Mr. Boothby: There is general agreement on all sides of the House with the proposal of my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, this is a very momentous occasion, because in fact what the Chancellor has done has been to lay down for the first time the rates of interest which he thinks ought to prevail in the opening phase of the war. The interesting thing is that his view has been accepted, not only on all sides of this House, but also by the City of London, thereby confirming a view which I have long held, namely, that, given the existing control over the exchange and over the export of capital, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, within limits, is practically able to state

what rate of interest he proposes to lay down for this country. There is no doubt whatever that the rate of interest laid down by him yesterday in this connection has been accepted by the financial community as a whole.
Nevertheless, I would point out to hon. Members opposite, and to other Members of the Labour party, that if you lay down a rate of interest of 2 per cent. on a short-term loan—and I think we must all hope for a maximum of 2½ per cent. in the meantime on medium term loans—by the time you take into account the prevailing standard rate of Income Tax and a possible increase in that standard rate in the next Budget or the Budget after that, there is not an awful lot of jam left for the rentiers at the end of it. That is, I think, as it should be, but I think hon. Members opposite should realise that these conditions do call for a very considerable sacrifice on the part of the rentiers of this country, a sacrifice which I think they have already shown they are cheerfully prepared to make. If you add up the figures, there is not an awful lot left at the end of it, especially when you take into account the possibility that if the war lasts for any length of time, there may be a certain general depreciation of the value of capital in addition.
There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who led for the Opposition, made, which I think is of some importance, and that is the question of relating the rates paid for call money and day-to-day money in the City of London with the general rates which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prescribed by what we are doing to-day, because I imagine that for the present financial year, at any rate, most of the borrowing will be done on a short-term basis, through the banks and through the note issues. Therefore, it is very desirable, in the interests of the taxpayer and of the State, that at the present time particularly short-term money—and by that I mean the very shortest-term money—should be kept at as low a rate as possible. It is slightly out of proportion at the time to the general rates which are being laid down by the Chancellor for medium and long-term loans, and I think my right hon. Friend could probably find himself in a position to make a proportionate adjust-


ment which in the next six months might save the taxpayer a certain amount of money. At least I think this question is worth his consideration. Meanwhile, I think we are all agreed that my right hon. Friend has chosen not only the courageous course, but the right course, in laying down the rates of interest for medium and long-term loans which he has done.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the power of the Treasury to make rules under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the National Loans Act, 1939,
put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL,

"to extend the power of the Treasury to make rules under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the National Loans Act, 1939," presented accordingly, read the First time; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 11.]

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
An Act of the magnitude and complexity of the Government of India Act, 1935, could hardly be expected to prove completely watertight, and certain defects and omissions have naturally come to light in the course of the working of the Constitution under the Act. I think it is rather remarkable, in view of the size of that Act of 1935, that more defects and omissions have not come to light, and it is a tribute to those who were responsible for the drafting of the principal Act. The main object of the present Bill is to cure these defects and omissions. There are, however, one or two Clauses which raise more substantial questions. A Bill was introduced in the House of Lords early last summer and passed through all its stages, and that Bill was awaiting consideration by this House when the outbreak of war made it necessary to enact the most important portions of it as an emergency Measure, which became law last September. This Bill represents the remainder of the original Bill, together with one or two extra Clauses.
I propose to refer, first, in a very brief outline to the Clauses dealing with defects in the principal Act and then to explain rather more fully those Clauses of somewhat wider import. The Clauses in the first category can, I think, conveniently be grouped with reference to financial, judicial, constitutional and general points. The financial Clauses are Clauses I, 3, 10 and 12. Clause r is designed to cure a faulty definition of "corporation tax" and also implements an incidental recommendation made by Sir Otto Niemeyer in his report on the Indian financial situation. I should like, however, to explain now, that since the Bill was introduced in this House the proposed revised definition has been reexamined in the light of the fact that we in this country have recently introduced an Excess Profits Tax as a war measure

and that India may want to do the same. It has been noticed that the proposed new definition, contained in this Bill, goes unnecessarily and undesirably far towards excluding from the category of "corporation tax" a tax like Excess Profits Tax which though satisfying all the essentials in its application to companies, would not naturally be described as "Supertax." I shall therefore have to ask the House at a later stage to consider Amendments to Clause I which will be designed to restore in this respect the generality of the definition. Clause 3 is intended to remove doubts as to the power of the Provinces to raise revenue by taxing motor vehicles and makes it clear that a tax on the consumption of electricity is a Provincial and not a Central tax.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer to Clause 2?

Sir H. O'Neill: I have already divided the Clauses of the Bill into categories, and I am now dealing with the first of those categories. Clause 10 alters by 12 months the date on which the balances, representing the assets of four family pension funds of members of the public services, were to be transferred as sterling funds to the charge of commissioners in this country; and Clause 12 enables persons appointed from the home Civil Service to high appointments in India such as those of Governor, or member of the Governor-General's Executive Council, to count their Indian service as service for pension.
Clauses 5 and 6 refer to judicial matters. Clause 5 enables the Governor-General to appoint a high court judge to act temporarily as a judge of the Federal Court, in place of any of the three judges of that court who may be incapacitated, and Clause 6 removes an unintended defect in the Act of 1935 the wording of which has made it impossible for the Government of Sind to convert the Judicial Commissioners' Court in that Province into a Chief Court, as they are anxious to do. Clause 4 deals with a minor constitutional point. It corrects the principal Act in connection with the issue by the Governor of Ordinances made on the advice of his Ministers. By some oversight, those Ordinances do not stand in precisely the same position, if their provisions conflict with those of a Central


Act, as Ordinances issued by the Governor in his discretion, or as Acts of the legislature or as Governors' Acts, and the purpose of this amendment of the principal Act is to rectify that omission and place those Ordinances on the same footing as the others.
Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 11 deal with various points of a general character. Clause 7 makes it clear that legislation with regard to universities is within the power of a Provincial Government. Clause 8 substitutes a new definition of "Indian State" for the definition now in the principal Act which has been found to be defective. Clause 9 revises the requirements which are necessary before a subject of an Indian State can be employed in Government service in British India; and Clause II validates certain increases in the strength and salaries of the staff employed at the India Office and by the Auditor of Home Accounts.
I now come to the Clauses which deal with matters of somewhat greater interest and importance than those which I have just mentioned. First, I refer to Clause 2. The purpose of this Clause is to place beyond dispute the distinction which it was always intended should be drawn between taxes on income on the one hand, and taxes on professions, trades, callings, and employments on the other. Taxes on income, other than agricultural income, are a Central source of revenue, whereas taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments are a Provincial source of revenue. It was never intended, of course, that taxes under these Provincial heads should be imposed on such a scale as to trespass on the Central field of taxes on income. Indeed, the main purpose in view when these headings were included in the Provincial list was to keep alive the right which Provincial Governments had exercised in the past of empowering local authorities, such as municipalities and district boards, to levy rates for local purposes which were commonly described as taxes on professions and taxes on circumstances and property. It was, of course, a characteristic of those taxes that their incidence upon the individual taxpayer was very small. Experience has shown, however, that it might be possible to levy taxes under these heads which are, in fact, substantial taxes on income. Some little time ago the Legislature of the United Provinces passed a taxing Bill

under the heading of an Employment Tax which was in fact nothing but a very substantial Income Tax. It would have imposed on the incomes concerned of all those deriving incomes from employment, a graduated tax which, in respect of a large part of the incomes concerned, would have amounted to as much as 10 per cent. It is clear that this would have constituted a serious invasion of one of the more important sources of revenue which had been assigned to the Central Government, and it is equally clear that if it were to be permitted on a large scale, it would have the effect of seriously upsetting the balance between Central and Provincial taxation.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Was that Measure actually enacted or is it still in the form of a Bill; and can the right hon. Gentleman state the estimated yield in the United Provinces of such a tax?

Sir H. O'Neill: The Bill was never enacted. It was reserved by the Governor for the consent of the Governor-General and that is the position in which it is now. With regard to the revenue from the tax, I understand that the amount of revenue affected is 30 lakhs of rupees which is considerably over £200,000. The effect of Clause 2 will be (by limiting the amount which may be levied on any one individual in any one year, under the heading of a tax on professions, trades, callings or employments, to a specified sum which, in the Bill, is placed at 50 rupees), will be to restrict the tax imposed to the character which it originally possessed and from which it was never intended that it should depart.
There are now only two further points in the Bill which I need mention. Both refer to Burma. Clause 15 is due to the discovery of a defect in the India, Burma and Aden (Transitory Provisions) (Taxation) Order, whereby the Burma Government could legally, though not equitably, claim a substantial sum representing the proceeds of duty on motor spirit produced in Burma before the separation but consumed in India after the separation. The Order itself cannot be amended, as it was made under a Section of the Act which is no longer operative, but the matter can be rectified by an Order made under Section 134 of the Government of Burma Act, if that Section is amended as proposed by this Clause. The House will, of course, be asked later to


approve of the draft Order which will be framed for the purpose indicated, in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Clause. The other point relating to Burma is contained in Clause 16, the effect of which will be to enable the Burma Legislature to apply with such modifications as may be necessary, the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act to naval forces raised in Burma. The need for this provision is the result of the decision to raise in Burma a naval volunteer force for the local defence of the approaches to Rangoon. As far as I know, there is nothing controversial in this Bill. I have already mentioned the reasons for its introduction and when we come to the Committee stage I shall, of course, be ready to give such fuller explanations of any of the separate Clauses as hon. Members may desire.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I am sure that everyone ho has listened to the right hon. Gentleman has admired the great clarity with which he expounded this Bill. It is a very complicated Bill, but nothing could surpass in clearness the method adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in presenting it to the House. It is, as he said, a Bill which deals with a number of defects which have become apparent in the Government of India Act, or with new difficulties which have arisen in connection with the working of that Act. As he also said these matters are, in many cases, obviously substantial. To give an example, there is the power not only to redefine—because that is what it is—the right of a provincial Assembly to impose taxes, but to take a Bill which has, I understand, been passed by a Provincial Assembly, and has reached the Governor-General and by coming to this House to make it illegal for the Legislative Assembly even to pass such a Bill. This matter concerns a considerable sum of money-£300,000 I am informed—but when one remembers that the Congress Ministries are very anxious to find new sources of revenue to replace the revenue which they have lost in pursuing their own policy by imposing prohibition, it is obvious that this may be more than a mere matter of money. It may cut right across the power of the Congress Party to carry out the programme in which they believe.
Apart from that, some of the Clauses of the Bill deal with charges upon the Indian revenues and some with charges upon the revenues of this country. I understand for instance, as regards the pensions of the staff of the India Office that that is a matter purely for the home Treasury, but, in other parts of these underlined Clauses of the Bill, we find that charges are imposed upon the Indian revenues. These are matters which can be raised and no doubt will be raised during the Committee stage of the Bill when, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, he himself intends to move Amendments, but there are two observations which ought to be made at this moment. This is a bureaucrats' Bill. It is produced by the Government of India and by the extremely efficient India Office. It is a Bill intended to clear up and to remedy defects which, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, were bound to be found in such a complicated Statute as the Government of India Act.
It is one thing to produce a neat piece of work, but it is another thing to make it palatable, I do not say fair, because I am sure those who drafted the Bill desired it to be fair; and it is another thing to make it acceptable to the people who will be affected. The astonishing thing about this Bill is that, here we are this afternoon, considering this Bill, a handful of Members of Parliament who would not claim for ourselves the right to be able to decide all the details as to the merits of these proposals which may affect the daily lives of 350,000,000 to 360,000,000 people. It shows the extremely weak position in which we stand here as attempting to govern India without a proper responsible Assembly in India to do the work for us. If this Bill was laid before the Legislative Assembly in India, I have no doubt Members would rise in all parts of the House and point to the real specific difficulties it would create for them. There will be some Members in this House, no doubt, who will attempt to speak on behalf of India, but none could do the job as well as India could do it for itself. Therefore, the general observation I would make on the Bill is that it should act for us as a reminder that, in the interest of India and of good government in India, and in the interest of the stability of the structure of the British Commonwealth of


Nations, the Government should do everything in its power to hasten the day when matters of this kind can be dealt with by the Indian people themselves.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) showed very clearly that the fact that we have to deal with such detailed questions does emphasise the importance of having in India a responsible Government which would deal with these problems itself. I would like to ask what are the opinions of responsible politicians and statesmen, and parties in India, with regard to some of the provisions of this Bill. Has any consultation, or discussion, taken place with those who are entitled to speak for Indian public opinion, as they have been elected by a democratic system under a constitution approved by this House? Is the Government able to tell us whether in particular Clause 2 of this Bill has been discussed with those who can speak for Indian opinion, and does it meet with the approval of either the Congress party or of other parties representative of public opinion in India? It does seem to me unfortunate that at this date we should ourselves have to deal with matters of such detail, although they may be of very great importance, as has been pointed out, to the Provincial Governments and to the Central Government of India. The Under-Secretary in explaining the Bill, which he certainly did very clearly if I may add my word of praise. said it had never been the intention that any form of Income Tax should form part of the revenue of a Provincial Government. I wonder whether this question has been tested in any way in the Indian courts, or whether it has merely had the approval of the Governor himself. It does seem to me that it might be, I do not know whether it could be, a subject which could be tested in the courts. That might have been a better procedure than a rather autocratic overruling of the Provincial Government of the United Provinces without apparently any consultation or consideration.

4.35 p.m.

Earl Winterton: When I came down to this House this afternoon I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but having been a student, if I may say so, or I might say a graduate in Indian

affairs for many years past in this House, and having been a member of the Round Table Conference and the Joint Committee, I feel I must say a word or two in answer to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn). He is a former Secretary of State, a man well-known in India and Indian political circles, and, while no doubt not much interest may be taken in this matter in the House to-day, his words will be reported in India. I should like to controvert one point of principle he made. Although one would not object to the general tone in which he welcomed this Bill, he did suggest that the mere fact that this Bill has been produced is evidence of the need for a complete change in the constitution of India. I do not think it is evidence of anything of the kind.
I should like to say, as one who took a prominent part in the discussions in this House on the Government of India Bill and who was a member of the Joint Committee and of the Third Round Table Conference and of the Burma Round Table Conference, that never has Parliament, in my opinion, shown itself to greater advantage in dealing with a big subject than when it dealt with the Act which this Bill seeks to amend. Extreme care was taken to ascertain every point of view. We spent weeks and months, as the House is aware, in the Committee, and though questions of very acute controversy arose, for instance between the present First Lord of the Admiralty and some other Members on this side of the House, and there were very prolonged Debates, on no single occasion was the closure once put on the discussion. The Act was in fact the greatest achievement that I think this House has ever achieved in the way of providing a written constitution for a great Territory of the Empire. As the Under-Secretary said, and as. indeed, the right hon. Member for Gorton admitted, it was admirable work on the part of the draftsman, as is shown by the fact that this is the first amending Bill which has been necessary since the principal Act was passed. I think it is a tribute to the labour of this House in the past, and the administration of the India Office, and of the officials responsible for drawing up the Act.
Regarding the only Clause which has been the subject of animadversion, namely, Clause 3 of the Bill, it is clear to me, speaking from my knowledge of


the details of the principal Act, that it purports, and all in fact that it does is, to make clear what was obviously intended in the principal Act, in, I think, the Seventh Schedule and in items 54 and 46, respectively, of the Provincial and the Central Legislative List, that is of the financial powers of the Central Government of India and Provincial Governments, respectively. The Under-Secretary is completely right in saying that this particular Amendment merely carries out the intention of Parliament in respect of that Seventh Schedule to the Act.
The Act which was passed by this Provincial Assembly will, when this Bill passes into law, be invalidated. That Act goes quite outside what was intended to be the spirit of the List in the Seventh Schedule. I repeat that this Act shows the wisdom of Parliament, the then Government and of the draftsmen and officials in passing what I maintain was one of the greatest Acts ever passed by Parliament, the Government of India Act, 1935.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: The Under-Secretary gave a very clear exposition of this Bill this afternoon. It was like clarified honey, for the words that flowed from his lips were smooth, enticing, sweet and attractive; nevertheless they failed to disclose the fact that there is, in Clause 2, a very significant, if not a sinister proposal, regarding the present powers enjoyed by the provincial legislatures in India. One might think from what was said that all this Bill is designed to do is to accomplish a little spring-cleaning, a little patching and plastering here and there, and a few pipes mended, and that is all. One would have no objection to any kind of renovation to a Bill of the magnitude of the Government of India Act but surely there must be objections to renovations which carry away a main cistern, and Clause 2 is somewhat in that respect. Actually, here we have a regrettable and significant exclusion which needs very serious and considerable consideration. This afternoon we, in this Bill, are certainly not increasing the powers granted to India. We are actually decreasing them, and there can be no doubt about that.
It may be said that all we are doing is to transfer certain powers that have been held ambiguously by certain of the

Provinces to the Central Government, but it means that we are re-stressing and emphasising the Imperialistic and autocratic power of Central Government, as distinct from the relatively democratic power of the Provinces. In that respect I, therefore, very much regret that this particular Clause happens to be in this Bill. I go further than that and suggest there may be an ulterior motive. Certainly I will assure the House, and the Minister in particular, that this Bill, and Clause 2 especially, is viewed with very great resentment and suspicion by politically-conscious people in India, and this is by no means confined to what is called the Left Wing. They look upon it as a blow at the hopes which they had been cherishing in their breasts. There has been a redistribution of power, and this amending Bill is aimed in favour of a more autocratic control and of a less democratic control. In other words, Parliament, if it passes this Bill, is engaged in a U-boat campaign against the existing powers of provincial autonomy, and I venture to submit evidence to prove that point. Certainly, we would not dream of making the proposals in this Bill apply to our Dominions; we would not dream of bringing in a Bill into this House suggesting we should drastically change certain important factors in regard to the legal and constitutional nature of our Dominion Government. But we do it here in regard to India, I suggest, because we are not inclined to look upon India as a potential Dominion, but we are in fact inclined to treat India as a colony which can be told and expected to do what we say.
The Bill is aimed, in respect of Clause 2, at the United Provinces which have been getting into difficulties in the past few months. The Government of India Act demarcated the legislative spheres of the Central Governments and the Provincial Governments. The power to impose taxation on income was conferred on or reserved by the Central Government, whereas the power to impose taxation on professions, callings, trades or employments was expressly conferred on the Provinces. The United Provinces desired earnestly to improve the lot of Government establishments and decided also to follow the general line of politically conscious opinion in India by progressively applying prohibition. I am sorry that the


Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not here. If she were she might join with me in protesting against what might be interpreted as an attempt to prevent the abolition of the drink traffic in India.
The attempt on the part of the United Provinces progressively to abolish the drink traffic and establish prohibition meant that they would lose a revenue of something like £300,000, a considerable amount. Therefore, they had to find some other method of raising the revenue. They then turned to see how they could secure the revenue to improve what is admitted to be the low level of Government establishments. The scope of the Provincial Legislatures respecting revenue is very limited and it is not unnatural that they should experiment by trying to secure from employments, trades, callings and professions a certain amount of revenue. They estimated that by a tax on employments they could secure some £200,000 towards the £300,000 they would lose. There was a certain amount of objection to it, as there is bound to be whenever prohibition is likely to come into existence. The objections were made largely by a minority of the population, but in course of time they were overcome and the Bill passed by a substantial majority. In any case, it was made clear that if there were any technical or legal objections to the tax on employment it could be settled in the same way as similar objections are settled in our Dominions. They could be taken to the law courts for legal definition and then on to the Privy Council. If there is any difference of constitutional interpretation between the Central Government and the Provincial Government in Canada, South Africa or Australia it is settled legally by reference to the courts and then to the Privy Council. Could not this have been done in this case? Those who objected to this Bill could have said that they were not satisfied, that the interpretation given by the United Provinces Government was inaccurate and that it was transgressing the law, and they could have insisted that the question should go to the appointed authority to discover legal opinion on the matter. The Provincial Government would have abided by the result.
The Bill was passed and submitted to the Governor for assent. The Governor withheld his assent and referred it to the

Governor-General. The resignation of the Legislature was offered on 3rd October and accepted on 3rd November. On 6th December the Governor-General intimated that he had suspended consideration of the Bill as the Secretary of State had intimated his desire to amend the Government of India Act, and that, therefore, assent would only be considered after the passage of the amending Bill. I am not a suspicious person, but I am entitled to agree that there was room for suspicion when that statement was made. The only reason for withholding assent was obviously because it was believed that the amending Bill would place the Governor-General in a different position and enable him no longer to get into difficulties, but to say that the Bill could not be passed because the amending Bill made it null and void. I am glad to see the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, here now.' I trust that she will not only whisper inspiring remarks to those on the Front Bench, but pay attention to the important Clause to which I have made reference. It is designed to prevent prohibition spreading in the Indian Provinces and I am hopeful that the Noble Lady—although she may at the moment be too embarrassed to pay attention to what I am saying—will join with me in protesting against it.

Viscountess Astor: Do I understand that the Clause is designed to impede the spread of prohibition in India?

Mr. Sorensen: Yes.

Viscountess Astor: Then, of course, I will protest against it.

Sir Stanley Reed: I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. This has nothing whatever to do with impeding or expediting the spread of prohibition in India. It is giving expression to a fundamental principle in the Government of India Act, 1935.

Mr. Sorensen: The fact remains—and I will say this particularly for the edification of the Noble Lady who, with her characteristic restlessness is wandering all over the benches—that this problem arises because prohibition had been brought in in the United Provinces and was leading to a substantial loss in revenue. The Noble Lady, however, is obviously determined not to listen to my remarks, and I will proceed to more


pertinent observations. This amending Bill provides for such a serious limitation of the powers of the Government of India Act that hon. Members on this side will do well not to allow it to pass easily and will propose some amendment on the Committee stage which will eliminate Clause 2 or, at least, succeed in considerably modifying it. Incidentally, other Clauses in the Bill require more clarification than they have received. I am not clear, for instance, what Clause 4 means. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give a clear explanation of Sub-section (1), particularly the last few lines. We might also perhaps have an explanation of paragraph (b) of Clause 9. What does it mean when it says that
a person who at the end of March nineteen hundred and forty is in the permanent service of the Crown in India shall not be ineligible to hold any office under the Crown in India by reason that he is not a British subject"?
Does that mean that provision is being made for aliens to control the people of India? But to refer again to Clause 2; it proposes that any tax on employments shall be limited so that no tax exceeding 50s. can be imposed. This nullifies the Bill passed by the United Provinces, and it is estimated that if this Clause passes all that will be collected is about £30,000 to £40,000, which is about one-tenth of the original estimate. Surely the whole intention of that Clause is either to cut clown the revenue or indirectly to inspire abolition of any attempt to limit the drink traffic in the United Provinces. The Under-Secretary said that it was not intended originally to trespass on the main fields of income and that the money which the United Provinces desired to secure in the Bill which they introduced was money that should more properly be collected and assigned to the Central Government. What does that mean but that the Central Government became apprehensive lest certain revenues in a very small sphere were going into Provincial funds rather than into their own funds? Income Tax cannot be imposed by the Provincial Governments, but only by the Central Governments. The United Provinces Government thought they had some means by which they could augment their funds legitimately under existing legislation, and secure the relatively substantial amount of £200,000. According to the remarks of the Under-Secretary, it was not intended that the Provincial Governments should gain so substantial an

amount and that they must not trespass on that field of taxation.
The Central Government is uncontrolled by the people of India, and we are indirectly, if not directly, helping to substantiate the very principle which this war is designed to destroy. That is why I suggest that the amending Bill is neither just nor fair. I suggest that it should be reconsidered by the Government with a view to its withdrawal. Clause 2 has given rise not only to misunderstanding and apprehensions in India, but to definite resentment. It will impose severe financial limitations on the United Provinces and other Provinces, for, although other Provinces may select other means of trying to raise revenue, sooner or later they may be in the same position as the United Provinces. In its considerable and retrospective powers this Bill is designed to limit the taxable scope of the Provincial Legislatures, and I am certain that many of those in India who desire greater understanding between India and this country look upon Clause 2 as a stab in the back.
We have to realise that in these days particularly, if we are to substantiate our belief in democracy, we have to demonstrate our convictions. Instead of reaction, we should be progressing; instead of contraction, we should be expanding, and as far as India is concerned, we ought to be doing all we can at this time to encourage the people to believe that we mean what we say when we declare that we are in favour of freedom, liberty and democracy and the rights of small nations. India has rights even though she is a teeming country of some 350,000,000, just as much as Poland or Finland. While we are rightly concerned with these countries in Europe, ought we not to be concerned with a country for which we have great responsibility? If this Bill is passed it will give rise to grave misgivings in India, and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will reconsider it, withdraw Clause 2 and allow the United Provinces to settle the matter, if necessary, by getting a legal judgment in the law courts or the Privy Council.
We who have such a great responsibility for India, we who want to see free co-operation between the Indian peoples and ourselves, we who want to


show the world an example of democracy, should surely demonstrate our sincerity this time not by so subtly introducing this Clause, which is in the nature, at least, of reaction, but, instead, do all we can to make proposals in the direction of freedom, progress and greater confidence in the right of the Indian peoples to govern themselves.

5.1 p.m.

Sir S. Reed: I do not suppose that from any side of the House there will be any criticism of the Government for introducing this Measure at this time, because with so vast and complex a Measure as the Government of India Act, 1935, we should not be surprised that there are a few ambiguities to be cleared up; we should rather admire the skill of those who drafted an Act which now requires so little amendment. On the main point of the brief discussion this afternoon I want to express my absolute concurrence with the principle underlying Section 2, and I think the speeches which have been made from the other side are based on a most complete misapprehension. This has no more to do with prohibition than the man in the moon. Those who have followed the course of Indian finance, and whose business it has been to study the relation of Federal finance to Provincial finance, and those no understand the complicated Sections of the Act of 1935, can be under no possible doubt whatsoever that taxes on incomes are a Federal source of revenue, and that without those taxes the Federal Government could not function and could not discharge the immense responsibilities remitted to it. There are two ways of impinging upon a Federal source of revenue, direct and indirect.
For some years, as a student of Indian finance, and even before the passing of the Act of 1935, I have warned the Government of India that unless they jealously watched the progress of Provincial taxation they would find the foundations of their main sources of revenue undermined and would be facing very serious difficulties; and if an Act of the United Provinces Government does directly or indirectly undermine those main sources of revenue it should not be allowed. There is in such action no weakening of the democratic systems of Government established in the Provinces,

for the purpose of the Amendment is to maintain the whole foundation of the principle and structure of the financial Sections of the Government of India Act itself. I am rather sorry that the "red herring" of prohibition should have been dragged into a purely financial discussion. Prohibition has been introduced and developed in several Provinces of India. It has been carried far in the Province of Bombay,where the revenue which will be sacrified is not a matter of £200,000 or £300,000 but of £200,000, or £3,000,000. Neither in Bombay, where this great and courageous experiment is being undertaken, nor in the Province of Madras, where great progress has been made, has there been any attempt to undermine or inpinge upon the essential sources of the revenues of the Government of India. If therefore the effect of this Act of the local legislature of the United Provinces is to impinge on those revenues I say it is right and proper that it should not be sanctioned, in order that we may maintain the essential structure of the financial Sections of the Act of 1935.

Mr. Sorensen: If the hon. Member asserts that it was not intended to allow this tax to operate, why is it that the Bill still allows it to operate up to 15s.? Is not the principle the same?

Sir S. Reed: It allows this tax to operate to a degree, but only to a degree which does not materially affect the revenues of the Government of India. My hon. Friends on the other side have not really studied the Act. They have talked about an appeal to the courts and to the Privy Council. There is no appeal to the courts and the Privy Council. If this Measure is not in entire consonance with the principles of the Act of 1935 the appeal goes to the Federal Court in India, which was set up for that purpose and has nothing to do with the Privy Council. As I understand the argument of my right hon. Friend, it is because there is an ambiguity in the Act that this House is now requested to amend it. Although I agree with the principle of this Amendment, if in Committee my hon. Friend opposite can show that it reduces, or derogates from, the true autonomy of any Provincial Government, whilst maintaining the main financial structure of the Government of India I will join with him in any Amendment which he


likes to put forward. What is the moral and the economical basis of prohibition? Surely it is this: That the drink traffic is so bad, so deleterious in its effects, that if you sweep it away you should render available Provincial sources of taxable revenue not only equal to those which you are destroying but in excess of them. It is those sources of revenue which should finance the prohibition campaign as it is being financed in several parts of India.
I have only two or three more words to say, because we shall have the advantage of discussing this Measure in Committee. This Bill does add to certain charges of the India Office, and I tell my right hon. Friend, in all friendliness, that those on this side who have studied the developments of the Indian governing system view with the greatest anxiety any increase whatsoever in the expenditure of the India Office. They hold strongly that with the development of the work of the High Commissioner, who now discharges so much of the work formerly done by the India Office, the expense of the India Office should rapidly decline. There is another point which, though perhaps a minor point, does touch the revenues of the Government of India, and that is the proportion of the pension charges of those members of the Civil Service who serve in India in high capacity, either as members of Council, or as Governors. No one who has served in India will have anything but profound admiration for the services rendered to India by some of the Civil servants who there held high office; but they cannot disguise the fact that in those offices they drew very large salaries, and sometimes very large allowances in addition; so though as I read this Clause it only validates an existing practice and does not create a new practice, we view it with some diffidence and with some regret.
Another point is really a Committee point, but I mention it now in the hope that my right hon. Friend may deal with it when it comes up in Committee. It is found in Clause 3 and is rather a curious point. To put it bluntly, it says that where an electricity duty is imposed the Federal Government shall not pay it in respect of any of its activities within that area. It does not say who shall make up the difference between the standard charge and the standard charge plus the duty. W2 may take it that in every Province the Government of India has

an Income Tax office and, as is the case in some provincial towns in this country, the greatest public building is the Income Tax office. The Federal Government say that in respect of that building, or the Customs office, they shall not pay the electricity duty. What is to happen if the Provincial Government charges electricity duty to the local supplier? Where is the difference to come from? That is a matter which I feel will have to be cleared up in the Debate.
Further, I want to say only this: My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India will not, I hope, regard us as in any way unfriendly because in Committee we shall subject this Bill to a very careful scrutiny, line by line and Clause by Clause. We shall do it for reasons which have been briefly put forward by my right hon. Friend who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. This Bill deals with the lives and welfare of hundreds of millions of people; it deals with immense interests which are not represented here; and the position of trusteeship which this House holds in relation to India is even more important now than when the Constitution is functioning normally. We shall endeavour to discharge that trusteeship, so far as we see it, by the most careful scrutiny and examination of this Bill, in order to ensure that in no part of it is there a departure from the principles of the Act of 1935 and that in no part is there any provision which may be construed into an injustice to the land we are here to serve.

5.13 p.m.

Major Milner: I had not the advantage of hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), but if he made any reflection on the way in which the Act of 1935 was passed through this House I am bound to say that I should have to agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). In my experience of some 10 years in this House I know of no Measure over which such great care was taken and upon which so many Members spent so much time. It is true, and I regret it, as I am sure the whole House does, that we have not the advantage of my right hon. Friend's knowledge and experience in these Debates, but I can hardly think he did make the criticism which the Noble Lord led us to think he did.

Mr. Benn: I did not make any such observation, and I would beg my hon. Friend not to go to critics opposite for his sources of information.

Earl Winterton: I do not want to be doubly contradicted by both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that it was unfortunate that we had to discuss these matters, which really ought to be discussed in India. I said, on the contrary, that the fact that this Measure was an amendment in so small a degree of the original Act was evidence of the great care which Parliament devoted to the principal Act, and that it was rather an advertisement of the value of the principal Act than otherwise.

Major Milner: I do not need to carry the question further, in view of what my right hon. Friend has said. The argument of the Noble Lord was directed to showing the care taken over the Government of India Act, 1935, which was ceded by a great number of conferences, commissions and inquiries of all kinds, and I say that indicates the danger of introducing, almost by a side wind, as this Bill is proposing to do, what appears to me to be a very radical change in the intentions of the House at the time it passed that Act. I understand that, in regard to the Clause to which my hon. Friend in front of me particularly referred, no consultation of any kind has taken place with anyone in India.
Here, it is proposed by a short amending Bill, and in the course of an hour or two's Debate in the House of Commons, to deal with a matter which was presumably the subject of discussion over a period of many months, if not, indeed, of years, and which passed through all the various stages through which the Government of India Act passed. Yet we now propose to pass this matter to-night with not one-tenth of the consideration which was given to the matter on that former occasion. As I understand the matter, Clause 2 takes away from Provincial Legislatures, without question, an existing right which was conferred on them by the Government of India Act, 1935. It obviously restricts the taxation rights of the Provincial Legislatures and must, of necessity, hamper their activities. Those who took part in those Debates in 1935 agree that very great care was

taken to demarcate those subjects which were appropriate for taxation by the Central Authority and those which were appropriate for taxation by the provincial authority. I regard with very serious disquiet indeed the intention exhibited in the Bill to make what I regard as a radical change in the decision which the House came to at that time.
I am bound to say that I have no knowledge of how far the question of prohibition enters into this matter, but it cannot be right to make a change of this sort, and to take away existing rights without at any rate some preliminary examination or consideration and, above all, without consultation in some form or another with the people of India. For that reason I regard the proposal as very unsatisfactory and not likely to lead to that happier state of affairs which we all want to see brought about in India at the present time.
There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer and I do not propose to deal with it in detail. If the Under-Secretary of State will be good enough to obtain the information I may perhaps ask for it on the Committee stage. There is a proposal in Clause 12 in regard to charging certain proportions of pensions of members of the Civil Service in this country who serve in India in part on the Indian revenues and in part on the revenues of this country. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give us a little more information on the point. I do not recollect it being discussed when the Government of India Act was in operation. I should like to know what period of service is necessary in India on the part of home civil servants in order to ensure the accruing of pension rights, and on what basis the distribution would be made as between Indian revenues and the revenues of this country in regard to them. What is the amount of the pension? I notice that no information is given on that point in the explanatory memorandum, but there ought to be no doubt about it, having regard to the fact that there is only one such pension payable when individuals finally retire from the Service. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would obtain that information for the Committee stage if he cannot give it now.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend in front of me that it is a matter


for regret that further progress has not been made in regard to greater self-determination for India. It is evident that the present Government of this country do not intend to assist in that process. Opportunity has been revived by this Bill whereby consultation could easily take place on an extremely important matter, to which very great regard will be paid in India. It is a matter for great regret that no consultation has taken place and that the Bill has been brought before the House without the consideration which ought to have been given to the proposals contained in it.

5.20 p.m.

Sir William Jowitt: I shall occupy the attention of the House for only a very few minutes. There are two good excuses for doing so. In the first place, owing to regrettable circumstances over which I had no control, I have not occupied the attention of the House for the last few years to the extent I should have liked, or at all; and, in the second place, I was a. member of or delegate to the original Round Table Conference. I did preside over two of the committees of that Conference and I got to know and to understand the Indian colleagues who sat with me. I got to know something of their hopes, their aspirations and their fears. During the years which have passed, my communications with those gentlemen have been but few, but I admit that I have been surprised to find that, in regard to this Bill, and to Clause 2—which is the only Clause that matters—I have had a considerable number of communications from India from Congress members, no doubt, but Congress members whom we have to gain and win over, if we are to make the Government of India the success for which we all hope.
I have no doubt that Clause 2 has given rise to considerable misgiving. May I pose quite simply the question which we have to consider? The Government of India Act, which—I entirely agree with the Noble Lord—was most carefully considered, every word being debated, if not it this House then by commissions, committees and so on, contained two lists, one being the appropriate matters for the Provincial Legislatures and the other being the appropriate matters for the Central Legislature. There was a third list which does not here arise. Number 54 in the Central Legislature list is:

Taxes on income other than agricultural income.
Number 46 in the Provincial list is:
Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.
It is a fact that, if you impose a graduated tax on employment, you may, so far as that employment is concerned, have something which is indistinguishable from a graduated Income Tax. Had I been here when the Schedules were being considered in 1935, and had the point occurred to me, I should have suggested that that possibility should be borne in mind. It might have been well to make it quite plain that the field of Income Tax was to be reserved in its entirety to the Central Legislature.
With very great respect to the speech which has been made, it seems to me a profound mistake to discuss this matter as though we were now debating it for the first time. What we may, in fact, be doing is making a very fundamental change in the powers conferred upon provincial legislatures. It is not for me to express any opinion as to whether the Bill passed—for it never received the assent of the Governor-General and the United Provinces—was or was not constitutional. I apprehend a very serious question about it. It might have been said: "This is nothing other than a tax on income." The Bill in question imposed a graduated tax. If your employment brought you in a salary of 3,000 rupees it proposed that you should pay 75 rupees. If your employment brought you in a salary of 30,000 rupees, 10 per cent., namely, 3,000 rupees, was to be the employment tax. If your employment brought you in 100,000 rupees, then more than 10 per cent., 11,000 rupees, was to be the amount of the tax. I can well understand that the point might have arisen whether that was or was not constitutional.
All those who have written to me from India have said: "We quite understand that that point might have arisen, and are quite prepared to have a decision taken on it by the courts; and are perfectly prepared, without any grievance at all, to accept loyally, as we must, what the decision of the courts may be." If the opinion of a private Member is of the slightest value my own impression would be that it is probable that the Act would have been held to be constitutional, but it is a question which, as the hon Member


pointed out, could be raised before the Federal courts. He did not point out that it could be raised by way of appeal, if necessary, from the Federal courts to the Privy Council. I would not have the slightest objection to that point being determined by litigation. What we are doing is, without determining that point and having conferred these powers upon provincial legislatures, powers which may justify this type of legislation, without asking the opinion of anybody in India or consulting anybody there at all, proceeding to take away those powers which they have.
In the letters, the writers frankly feel a grievance. It appears, on considering the matter for the first time, that Clause 2 tidies up the machinery and prevents a most unfortunate overlapping; but it has the danger, has it not? of altering the powers which you have already conferred —subject to the opinion of the courts, and I assume that—upon the Provincial Legislatures. The test which we should apply to any legislation or proposed legislation concerning India to-day is, will it or will it not help to resolve the existing difficulties? I believe that the existing difficulties are in the main psychological. I believe that they depend in the main upon trust and confidence. I believe that if the Congress leaders had the same trust and confidence that I have in the opinions and the aspirations of His Majesty's Government much of the difficulty would disappear. Therefore, anything which you do to increase that feeling of trust and confidence is good, and anything which diminishes trust and confidence, even though it brings about tidier machinery and better administration, is bad.
I ask myself, will this proposed legislation increase the trust and confidence which the Congress leaders feel towards us to-day? Putting that question to myself, I can only answer it in one way. What they feel is this: "You have settled the rules of the game; we are playing the game according to the rules which you laid down in your very carefully considered Act of Parliament, and directly you find the rules are a bit awkward for you, you change them." That does not make for trust and confidence. The Noble Lord said one thing. He said that some such provision as is in the Bill was always intended. If at some stage—the Committee stage for instance—that is made

out, then I think the fears I have been expressing will be largely dissipated.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps I was not very happy or precise in my language, but what I intended to say was that while it was not a legal term I believe this Amendment of the Act did carry out the spirit and intention of the Seventh Schedule.

Sir W. Jowitt: That is precisely what I understood the Noble Lord to say and the sense in which I desired to repeat it. There were committees and innumerable documents concerned with this, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter and see whether he can point to something definite in writing —something not legal at all but a report of some committee, for instance—making it plain that this was intended; he would then have a satisfactory answer to those who say, "This is not playing the game; you are altering the rules." He said, "I am altering the rules in a legal form to bring about what we always intended," but, after all, if there is nothing of that sort I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we can only judge people's intentions by what they have said, and if the words they have used do confer upon the Provincial Parliament the power to pass an Act such as the United Provinces Parliament did pass, and if there is nothing in the innumerable committees or commissions dealing with that, then I am afraid we shall have to face the fact that it is true we are altering the rules after the game has started. I am afraid we shall have to face the fact that that may do us harm, and I would urge the Government between now and the Committee stage to consider it, realising as I do that if we were considering this for the first time they would have a strong case. I ask them to consider the overriding question, Will this Bill help to solve Indian difficulties as they exist today? If it will, then God speed the Bill; but if it will not solve those difficulties and if it will accentuate and exacerbate those difficulties then, notwithstanding all the improvements in the machinery, the Bill will do more harm than good.

5.34 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): My right hon. and learned Friend raised one point in connection with Clause 2, and possibly it might be desirable for me to attempt to outline the answer. May I say that we on this side


of the House greatly welcome his reappearance among us and we are very glad to have the opportunity of listening once again to those mellifluous tones we loved long past and have not forgotten.
I do not think the House would wish me to cover the points that have been raised on the different Clauses of the Bill in particular by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I think he anticipated that it would be better to reserve an elucidation of the somewhat complicated and detailed later Clauses until we come to the Committee stage. Nor do I intend, as it is quite clear there will be a full discussion on Clause 2 in Committee, to do more than state at the earliest opportunity what the problem of the Government is, as it has always been. The right hon. and learned Gentleman with his usual clarity pointed out the distinction between the Federal and Provincial legislative lists. I would like to add a sentence from the governing Section, Section 100 of the Act, which gives those lists their being and operative power:
Notwithstanding anything in the two next succeeding Sub-sections, the federal legislature has and the provincial legislature has not power to make laws with respect to List 1.
When you turn to List 1 of the Act among the matters which the Federal Legislature has power and the Provincial Legislature has not power to deal with are taxes on income. If it stopped there, there could be no doubt whatsoever that a graduated tax upon the activities of people in professions would be outside the capacity of the Provincial Legislature and I think I should carry my right hon. and learned Friend with me in that matter. At that time there had existed in India for a considerable time past, as I understand, a power on the part of the municipalities and provincial authorities to levy taxes on employment which were insignificant in amount— not graduated, but something in the nature of a fee. It was to preserve that power that there was included the provision which appears as No. 46 in the Provincial List, taxes on professions, trades, callings and employment. May I say in the most emphatic way that it never was contemplated at any moment that power should be given to the Provincial Legislatures to introduce what were in the ordinary sense

taxes on incomes? I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who was then in charge of the Bill, to say that it was made clear over and over again—this is in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend—both in the Joint Select Committee and in the Committee stage in the House of Commons itself, that the imposition of Income Tax in the ordinary sense was a matter that was clearly reserved to the Federal Legislature, and that indeed the whole financial structure of the Government of India that was then contemplated was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has pointed out, based upon the Income Tax going to the support of the Federal Revenues and, as he pointed out, if you permitted an encroachment or a wedge to be driven into this very substantial source of revenue, you would undermine the whole foundations of federal revenue.

Sir W. Jowitt: I have made considerable researches and I have read many of the observations which the Lord Privy Seal is, I think, hoping to say.

The Solicitor-General: It certainly is our intention to try and substantiate by direct reference what I have said. All I desire to say and to make perfectly clear at this stage is that it has been the conception of the Government throughout that Income Tax in the true sense should have been a federal tax and not a provincial tax at all, and there is no desire in Clause 2 to do any more than give effect to what was the intention of the legislature at the time.

Mr. Benn: It was even within the realm of what may be a local tax or duty. It limits the power of a local authority to raise money within a fixed limit.

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure that I could agree as to the competence of a tax of the kind that was introduced in the United Provinces within the structure of the Government of India Act. It is not for us to say to-day whether that was intra vires or not. At any rate, it would be arguable that a tax of that kind was never intra vires at all, and the proposed Clause is to save the possibility of levying the type of tax that used to exist and which was in mind at the time that No. 46 of the Provincial List


was brought in. As I said a moment ago, it was in order to save this comparatively minor tax that Item 46 was included. On the hypothesis that it is a tax on income there is an argument—I put it no higher than that—that it would be impossible for the Provinces to introduce any such tax and that is the reason for the form in which Clause 2 is drafted. Even if upon a strict construction they are Income Tax and therefore outside the power of the Provinces, then in order to limit those to the conception that they are small taxes in the nature of a fee the figure of 50 rupees is included. I am told that 50 rupees would more than cover the normal taxes that used to be within the power of the Provinces before the Government of India Act was passed.

Mr. Sorensen: Why could not the whole matter be considered by the courts in the ordinary way? What is the objection to that procedure?

The Solicitor-General: That is a very attractive proposition to a lawyer but we are at war at the moment and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this Act of Congress in the United Provinces was, I think, held up many months before the war. Certainly it was held up before the war by the Governor-General under his general powers and, so far as I know —I may be wrong in this—no step was taken by those who were interested in getting the Act into force to find out whether it was an Act intra vires or not.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the obligation rested not upon the United Provinces Government but upon those who challenged its interpretation.

Sir W. Jowitt: It is not an Act until the Assent is given.

The Solicitor-General: I should have thought it might have been possible to get a decision by the court as to the capacity to introduce legislation at a particular time. I should have thought it might have been possible in India if anybody was sufficiently interested to attempt it. The fact remains that the view of the Government is that taxes of this kind never have been within the contemplation of anybody as being within the powers of the Provinces, and in Clause 2 we are doing no more than

giving effect to what Parliament all along intended and possibly to what Parliament actually said, and we are doing so without the long-drawn-out process of proceedings before the courts and ultimately before the Privy Council to obtain a decision.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tuesday next.—[Mr. Grimston.]

INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Government of Burma Act, 1935, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be payable there from by reason of provisions, whether retrospective or not, which—

(a) validate appointments to, or legalise increases or payments of salary in the case of persons on, the permanent establishment of the Secretary of State in Council or the staff of the Auditor of the accounts of the Secretary of State in Council, or
(b) render a Civil Servant appointed to an office under the Crown in India or Burma eligible for a pension or gratuity on relinquishing the office,
and to authorise the payment out of revenues of India or Burma of such sums as may become payable therefrom by reason of any of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session."—(Kinģ's Recomtnendation signified.)—[Sir H. O' Neill.]

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I understand that the purpose of this is to enable the time which is spent in the employment of the Indian Provinces by civil servants of this country to be reckoned as pensionable. I want to ask whether the additional pension which may be payable in respect of that time will fall upon the revenues of this country or on those of India?

5.48 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: Perhaps I might deal with that in greater detail when we come to the Bill. I think the position is that a small portion may be payable out of the


Indian revenues, but, of course, the great bulk of the money is payable out of the United Kingdom revenues.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

SERVICE DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I desire to call attention to the allowances which are paid to the dependants of large numbers of soldiers. Let me first say that it was not expected that the business to-day would have taken the course that it has taken. We do not consider that justice to the dependants of thousands of soldiers is a subject to be dealt with at the tail-end of a Debate; we consider it to be a first-class issue. But it seems to be the fate of this subject to be always overcast by other matters. Hon. Members will remember that in early October there was a very important Debate in this House on the allowances of soldiers' dependants, including wives and children. There was another Debate in the middle of October, in which there was great concentration on the question of married soldiers. When the Government then promised an inquiry we on this side, at any rate, never dreamed that the conditions under which the dependants Of unmarried soldiers received allowances were going to be altogether overlooked. So it comes about that to-day great masses of people who are parents of soldiers are feeling aggrieved. I think it is true to say that Members have been stormed with demands that the case of such people should receive consideration. It would not be an exaggeration to say that unless this matter receives really serious attention it will create something like a national scandal.
I suppose there are 1000,000 men now in. the Army, and by far the greater number of them are single men. Under the present regulations only a very few of the parents are able to get any allowance at all. There has been great confusion on this matter, inside this House as well as outside. Originally, when men were called up for the Militia in July there was

a certain scale of conditions laid down, but in September, when the war broke out and there was a general call to arms, an important change was made in those conditions; and Members of this House did not know that that change had been made. Members could not get hold of the Army Order in which were laid down the conditions under which parents of unmarried soldiers applied for allowances. I found Members wandering around this House asking whether there was any Paper dealing with this matter. On several occasions I took Members to a remote part of this House, where a very small, almost microscopic, copy of the Order was secreted; and when one did get it it was not easy to understand what it was about. At last we got the War Office to issue a White Paper, and it was then discovered that this important change had been made. If Members have the White Paper, Cmd. 6138, they will see a very important paragraph on page 6. This is paragraph 8, which, referring to the previous scheme, says:
The above schemes apply generally to soldiers on general mobilisation subject to the following main modifications ….
and then it gives them, (a), (b) and (c). For material purposes, the important paragraph is (c), which says that it is a condition that in the case of dependants other than separated wives, unmarried wives and widowed mothers, an allowance is granted only if the dependant, or, in the case of a soldier's mother, her husband, is not capable of self-support. That simply means that, apart from a soldier's mother who is a widow, no soldier's dependant gets an allowance unless the soldier's father is incapable of self-support. The soldier's mother who is a widow may get a pension—I say she may, because she does not always get one; the conditions are very strict there.
Let me first deal with the question of the widow. It is generally assumed that the widow, merely because she has no other means of support, gets an allowance of 20S. 6d., inclusive of the allotment; but that is not always so. As a matter of fact, she can be living under very hard circumstances and still not get the allowance. I have here the case of a widow whose son was 20 when he was called to arms and had been earning up to then 35s. a week. On his twenty-first birthday, a month or two later, he would


have been getting £2 17s. He allows his mother 7s. a week and she has an income of 15s. a week compensation because her husband was killed. That makes a total of 22S. a week, and, as it is above the limit laid down, she gets no allowance at all. She has a daughter who is a probationer nurse, but who is getting only something like £1 a month. It is a fact that the widow is limited to 20S. 6d., and if she has two sons in the Army both of whom allow her 7s. and in addition she gets a pension of mos. she will get no allowance.
It is said, I know, that she could go to the Special Grants Committee and get her case considered. The Special Grants Committee does its best. It is wrestling with a large number of cases; I think literally thousands are pouring into it. The committee cannot give adequate consideration to all these cases. In any event, the dependant ought not to be subject to the consideration of such bodies. A dependant ought to have an allowance as a right, and that allowance ought to be based on conditions which shut out the unemployment assistance representative who goes to inquire into the means of the widow. I thought that this House was not too proud of the fact that someone had to go to an unemployed man's home and inquire as to his means. Surely this House can lay down such conditions as make it possible to settle an allowance upon a person without the investigation of the officers who serve the Unemployment Assistance Board, which governs any allowances that may be made. It is a case of applying the taint of Poor Law relief on a national scale to soldiers' dependants.
The conditions that are laid down in respect of the widow need serious consideration. If the son of a widow is in the Army, and, as a result of promotion, increases his allotment of 3s. 6d. to his mother by the addition of another 3s. 6d., is the House aware that it does not mean an increase of 3s. 6d. in the widow's income, as the Army deducts 3s. 6d. as the result of the soldier making that increased contribution. I have the case here of a boy who allotted 3s. 6d. to his mother when he went into the Army in July. In September his pay was increased, and, in accordance with general instructions, he increased his allotment by 3s. 6d., and therefore was allowing

his mother 7s. The mother was originally receiving 3s. 6d. in addition to the 3s. 6d. that the boy was allotting to her, but when the boy allotted a further 3s. 6d. the woman's allowance of 3s. 6d. was stopped. This is the answer I received from the War Office:
The position is that Private So-and-so joined the Militia last July. His rate of pay was then is. 6d. a day, and of this he agreed to authorise an allotment to his mother of 6d. a day. In addition to this, a dependant's allowance of 3s. 6d. a week was also granted. At the outbreak of war the gross rate of pay was raised to that of the Regular soldier, that is to say, this soldier received 2s. a day. The allotment from his pay was accordingly increased to Is. a day. Under our Regulations, however, any grant of dependant's allowance is made inclusive of the soldier's allotment.
In this case, therefore, the total sum being issued to the woman remained at 7s. a week, and the original allowance of 3s. 6d. a week was stopped. That is an instance of the results, not of the evil ways of the War Office, but of the conditions laid down in these Regulations. The people of this country have recognised the forlorn condition of a woman, particularly in a working-class home, who loses her husband. The loss of the husband very often increases and intensifies the burden of the home. If a boy or two are at home they seem somehow or other to feel the loss of their father, and as they grow up they tend to recognise that the day will come when they will have responsibilities. One of the finest things about such homes, with very few exceptions, is the tendency of the boys to recognise their responsibilities to their mother, and indeed to become even more eager to give what they can to her to try and make up for the sacrifices she had made during previous years. When boys who are getting into that position are taken away at a time like this, when they desire to give their mother some little reward for her sacrifice and enable her to enjoy some of the very small things of which she had been deprived in previous years, the House ought to see to it that a decent allowance is made to such women. It will be discovered from any close inquiry into the amounts that have been given to these women that there is not very much for them to rejoice about, and the conditions should be severely overhauled.
I can assure the House that there is a very strong feeling about this matter,


and that it is growing and will continue to grow. Is the House aware of the fact that in the case of the loss of the "Royal Oak," which touched the sympathies of this House and the country and of the world, the bulk of the sailors were single men, and that there has been a flood of appeals from parents asking why they could not receive a pension for the loss of their sons? The allotment of 5s. in the case of the sailor has been stopped. These people have not only lost their sons, but they have lost the allotment. When they apply for a pension they are told that there is no pension because there was no allowance. I have particulars of four cases connected with the "Royal Oak," and hon. Members here can produce other cases, and the matter is becoming one of common discussion outside. One reply I received says:
I have looked into the case of so-and-so. The general conditions laid down in the Order-in-Council for the grant of pension to parents are that they should be in pecuniary need and wholly or partly incapable of self-support by reason of age or infirmity.
I find that neither need nor incapacity can he used in this case. The father, aged 41, is earning his ordinary wages at a colliery, which will be about £2 10s. That is the kind of case that is being brought to our notice. I have four of them relating to those who have lost sons in the "Royal Oak." They have not got anything because there was not an allowance. The allowance practically dictates the giving of a pension. If there is an attack by the Germans at any time involving a great loss of life in anything like the proportion of the losses of the last war, it will be discovered that in cases where there has been no allowance there will be no pension. There is no allowance because there is a need test. There is no pension because the need test applies, and because, in these particular cases, no allowance was made.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Possibly in that same letter the hon. Member will find it stated that if the needs of the parent become more difficult they can then apply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member ought to make that clear to the House.

Mr. Lawson: I am really surprised that there should be any question about the points that I have put, because it is laid down quite clearly in the letters I have

quoted here. It is true that if the need arises in the future an application can be made, but it is also true that for a great number of years we have heard the same about the position of dependants as the result of the last war, and it is very rarely that need is established in cases where a pension was originally refused. There is very great need for overhauling the conditions under which allowances are granted. The old means test has crept into the Service men's conditions. The people of this country were very reluctant to put the means test into operation in its application to the unemployed. Members opposite said that it was something which they were compelled to do by circumstances, but did anyone ever dream that the same principle would be applied in respect to the men who would serve this country? Not only that, but the means test man, as he is called, is so called not because he is a person but because of the kind of work he does. In the bulk of cases there are no allowances laid down at all.
There is another matter which deals with allowances and with the general question of payment. The paymaster is the person who settles these things although I know there is a Special Grants Committee which considers special cases. Generally speaking, however, parents or widows who have sons in the Army receive an answer from the paymaster on a printed buff form. But when the Minister writes a letter he can at least try to write in something like human terms instead of the usual answer being turned out, like an automatic machine, by some clerk in the paymaster's office. In such a case a parent does not know where he is. There is another point; there is no one in their districts to whom they can go in order to try and get into more direct contact with the responsible authority. The average member knows that if they deal with the paymaster's office an answer will be forthcoming quickly because it is a Member of Parliament who is writing. We know, though, how soulless and automatic are the answers we receive. People living in different parts of the country are left with no clear explanation as to what has happened and why they do not get anything. What is worse, they are left with a sense of grievance of a wrong that has been done them and one to which they cannot reply.
I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should overhaul the system of granting these allowances. In the last war there was no difficulty about these matters at all. The people who worked with the paymasters were representative public men and women. I know the old age pensions committees were made the bodies that considered these claims. I think there was a flat rate allowance of 5s., but where parents made claims the local committees gave them every consideration and brought the matter near to the home of the person concerned. They could go to a committee and put their case to them. If they had to refuse a claim parents clearly understood the reason for the refusal, and if they had a case parents got a hearing that they understood and an appreciation of their conditions. So I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider overhauling this machinery for the payment of allowances so that we can humanise them and bring them back to the doors of the people. In view of the time at our disposal I do not want to take much longer but I want to say this—there is no doubt whatever about the feeling that is growing on this matter. I had a resolution sent to me from one of the miners' lodges. They do not usually deal with these matters but they are asking the county organisation to petition the Government with a view to securing some remedy of pensions to parents whose sons and daughters have been killed during war service, where wholly or partially dependent on their earnings prior to enlistment. There is no doubt that that spirit is growing throughout the country and I say it will become more vocal if there is a break on the Western Front. The Minister should, above all, consider abolishing the system of the means test in settling the allowances to these people.
I do not want to say hard words about some people who are doing quite well. War profiteers exist and they do not have the systematic examination into their means and income that these poor people have. Neither are there such conditions laid down for them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he overhauls these conditions so that people can have something like a fair deal there will be no complaint in the nation. There is no man or woman in any walk of life who

would not be happier for the knowledge that justice is being done to those who are serving the nation. The morale of the nation will be better for it, the men who are serving will be more satisfied, and it is very little to ask those who have given so much that decent allowances should be given to those who have so little.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I rise to press forward the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. My own feeling about this matter is this: that the House has not had an opportunity, hitherto, of facing up to the position with which we are confronted at the present time. We are taking a large number of young men into the Army from various professions, skilled trades and avocations and we ought to take into consideration the fact that we are taking young men whose parents have been put to considerable expense for the purpose of giving them their education and training. As a matter of fact a large number of parents have been involved in considerable debt in order that these young men should be trained. They have to a certain extent staked their financial future upon the possibilities of these young men bringing in or supplementing the income of the home. We have never faced up to this fact and the result is that a large number of parents are not receiving any, or a substantial part of, the income they expected. I have an instance in my mind, arising from a reply I received from the War Office during last week, of a widowed mother with two daughters and a son. The son is in a comparatively good position. He was handing over to the home something in the nature of £2 per week until he was taken into the Army. All he can do now is to make the ordinary allowance. I submitted the case to the War Office and they replied that as the average income to the home worked out at 15s. per week per person they can make no allotment to the widow for her son.
I wonder whether the War Minister can appreciate that sort of thing in a home whose income has been so substantially reduced. This is not an isolated case. One can number such a case by thousands, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate what this sense of grievance is going to amount to presently among such an enormous number of people in the country. Let us be realistic


in the matter and realistic with a sense of humanity. I know of young men who have just completed their apprenticeships —members of my own trade union—whose parents have made considerable monetary sacrifices in order that they should serve their apprenticeship. For six months they had been supplementing the income of the home. All they can allow to the home now is their allotment, and the result in many cases is that parents have been compelled to remove from comparatively good homes into smaller premises and reduce the standard of their home accordingly.
We must appreciate the fact that where no allowance is being made by the War Office to the parents, no pension is payable to the parents on the death of a son. That is very different from what occurred in the last War, and it is no use the Government making the excuse that because pensions in the last war proved to be so costly they are justified in trying to avoid the payment of pensions in this war. I have said before that where it is a case of men serving in the Forces the Government want to run the war cheaply, but when it is a question of profiteers and businesses men can get precisely what they want without any quibbling. That is not going to keep the nation united. Already many people are asking what we are fighting this war for, and all talk about liberty and equality is becoming moonshine to them.
Let us be just and appreciate the fact that if a father or mother loses a son they should be entitled to receive a pension. The least they received on the loss of a son in the last war, and it might be a daughter in this war, was 5s. The old age pensions committee of a local authority functioned in an admirable manner and brought into the whole procedure the human touch. That is what we need in the administration of these allowances. Members of Parliament are able to appreciate the stereotyped letters which we receive from the War Office; we take the cold print at its true value, but if a mother or father who has lost a son or a daughter in the war receives a letter simply stating that there is to be no pension, a letter in cold print, it will create a great deal of pain and anguish. I want to appeal to the Secretary of State to humanise his machinery and above all to see that there

shall be an allowance for parents in such circumstances. What is more important is that this House should demand a pension for any parent for the loss of a son or daughter.

6.33 p.m.

Miss Ward: I should like to offer my good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and to say that I hope he will have a very successful term of office. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) take exception to the investigations for special allowances to men in the serving Forces being carried out by members of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I entirely agree with him. I have already stated my views on this matter in the House, and it is a pleasant thought that a Socialist reform should be led by a Conservative Member from the North of England. I want to raise one or two specific cases. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he will be kind enough to carry out some investigation with regard to the delay in payments to separated wives who have got court orders against their husbands. I have one or two very distressing cases in my own constituency, and I feel that these cases must represent a great many more over the whole of the country. I will mention only two. Curiously enough, the first case I raised in the last Debate sometime last October, and I want to make it perfectly plain that I am not suggesting that the War Office has not endeavoured to assist me. I am not myself guilty of complacency and lack of action in trying to stimulate Government Departments when I think they are not carrying out their duties very successfully, and I should like to thank the Financial Secretary to the War Office and his staff for the endeavours they have made to get this case settled.
It requires to be said, however, that it is regrettable that neither the War Office nor the Member of Parliament for the constituency, starting as long ago as last October, should not have managed by the middle of January to have got the amount of the court order, about which there is no question, paid to the woman I also think it fair to say that in this case I understand it is not the fault of the paymaster of the unit concerned. But we started this case last October, and here we are in the middle of


January and the amount of money due to this woman has not yet been paid. I think the Secretary of State for War might set on foot an inquiry in all regiments to find out what is the position with regard to separated wives. That is one case.
I want to raise another case of a young woman aged 21 who has a baby and also a court order for its maintenance against her husband. There is no allowance. On 5th October she received a letter to say that the allowance would be paid immediately. On 11th November she received a further letter to say that the allowance would be paid in a few days. On 28th November she received a letter to say that early action would be taken. On 28th December she received a letter to say that the case was in the hands of the paymaster, and at the end of the month she again received a letter to say that the paymaster had referred the case to the officer commanding. On the 10th January, when I saw her, she had still not received the amount of the court order due to her. I submit that if these two cases are representative of the position of separated wives it does require thorough investigation on the part of the War Office to ascertain what is the position so that action can be taken in every case. I will not labour the case because I think the facts speak for themselves, and I have made my point clearly.
I come to the next question which I want to raise, the payment of allowances to wives where the soldier for some reason or other has suffered a reduction in rank, carrying with it a reduction in the amount of money payable to the wife. I recognise that where there is promotion the case is not so important, although any delay is regrettable, because the arrears can be made up. Let me say that when I raised this general question with the Financial Secretary he was kind enough to express his sympathy and to agree with my point of view. I promised to give him cases as they came along. I want to take this opportunity of raising a question of principle. Here is a case where a man was reduced in rank because of an offence. There is no question about that. The actual reduction in rank took place on 1st November, but on 27th November, when the wife got her weekly allowance, she got a reduced

sum of 3s. That case was taken up by one of the help and information bureaux, and I should like to pay a tribute to the work that has been done by these bun-aux and also by the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association, who have cooperated in a magnificent way and given a great deal of very useful advice to the people they desire to help. Let me read the letter which was sent in answer to this case by the paymaster:
You will appreciate that it is impossible to have the allowance book stopped immediately the change takes place, resulting in an over-payment which must be recovered. This is done in such a manner as to cause the least hardship. In this case stoppage was made at once due to the transfer of the issuing office from Leith to Leicester.
But the reduction in rank was made on 1st November and the woman's reduction in pay was not made until 27th November. I quite appreciate that one cannot make the machinery operate too quickly, that would be asking too much, but I do suggest that to allow a woman who had no knowledge of her husband's position to go to the Post Office, with all her weekly commitments to meet—and wives of serving men have to budget on their weekly payments—and finds that she is entitled to only 3s., shows a complete lack of understanding of the human side of the question in this matter of allowances. I suggest that in the future the Secretary of State should issue instructions that where reductions in allowances to wives have to be made owing to any alteration in the rank of the husband, the reduction should be made over a period and that there should not he such violent reductions as were involved in this case.
Another question is that of the allowances and pay to men in hospitals. I am really raising this matter because of the case of an airman which has been reported by an association well qualified to offer advice on the matter: that men going into hospitals do not always receive their pay and allowances except when they return to their units. The men do not always understand this, and I received a letter the other day from one of my constituents in the Air Force who is in hospital, who cannot obtain a small amount of money in order to buy a few cigarettes and luxuries which he wanted to have when he was in hospital. I took up the matter with the Air Ministry, and


I was told that in this man's case the machinery had not worked successfully. I feel that in a matter of this kind it would be well worth my right hon. Friend's time if he would find out how the machine is operating.
I want now the raise the question of hospitals. This is a difficult subject to discuss because part of the arrangements come under the War Office and part come under the Ministry of Health, and it is not easy for an ordinary individual to find out where the responsibility of the War Office ends and that of the Ministry of Health begins. I have been to a good many of the camp hospitals and medical posts. It is very awkward for the uninitiated to know the whole range of hospital arrangements for the troops, but I think that in the case of small camp hospitals, which I understand are used simply for detaining men who are suffering from minor diseases and who, after a day or two's rest, are able to rejoin their units, it would be worth while if the Minister had an inspection made of the conditions in which these hospitals are set up. The other day I visited one in Northumberland. There were four gallant Red Cross nurses there. On their arrival at the hospital they found that no arrangements had been made with regard to cooking, but one of the nurses did the cooking, in spite of the fact that her contract was for nursing. There was as accommodation a large hall with a very tiny fire, the temperature was very low, and certainly was not fit for the girls to work in.
When the men in bed with laryngitis, tonsilitis, influenza, and similar minor diseases, have to sit up in the icy atmosphere, after having been warm and comfortable in bed, there is the danger that they may catch a fresh chill and perhaps suffer from a major illness. I was able to deal with that matter, with the good will and co-operation of the War Office, and with a few telegrams. However, I suggest to my right hon. Friend, that he must not impose upon the decency and co-operation that he will receive from the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance and the whole of the nursing services; there is no need for these nurses to suffer unnecessary discomfort. Although, as the House knows, I am no feminist, I suggest it would be a good thing if the War Office would arrange for a woman who knows

something about hospitals and comfort to visit these camp hospitals and see what can be done to improve them.
I gathered also that there was some delay in providing the equipment that was necessary. Probably the War Office's idea of equipment and my idea of equipment differ widely, but there is no reason why there should not be, in these hospitals, an adequate supply of bed linen, water bottles, pillows, and so on. I believe the War Office desire that there should be an adequate supply of these things. It is merely a question of organisation, and a question of getting the cooperation of people who could go round and see in what sort of conditions of comfort the hospitals were being run, and forward their opinions to the right quarters in order that the necessary steps could be taken. I am certain that in time all these things will work out satisfactorily.
I want now to pay some attention to the new system of providing large hospitals which are to house both civilians and men from the Services. In Northumberland, the other day, I visited one of the new hospitals which are, I understand, under the Ministry of Health. I was received with open arms by the staff, because they said that they would be able to tell me something about the position. I went round the wards. The beds had been supplied by the Ministry of Health. After they had been supplied and men were in them, a circular had come from the Ministry stating that in no circumstances were any patients to be moved on beds, because if that were done the beds would collapse. There was an instruction from the Ministry that every bed was to be strengthened by the addition of a clamp. I was told that in one hospital 30 beds collapsed, and that the Ministry of Health then sent out a circular. There are occasions, I suggest, when women know more than men, and if a hospital bed has to be designed, I think it would he a good thing if a woman were brought in to see whether the bed is suitable or not. After ma king inquiries, I find that the Government have ordered 100,000 or 150,000 of these beds, and that it was only when the beds were sent out to the hospitals that it was found they were not strong enough to hold the patients. Moreover, the legs of the beds were rough and little castors had to be


fitted so that they would not tear the floors of the hospitals to pieces.
There is another matter which I want to raise. Although I am not an expert on it, I try to be a practical individual, with as much common sense as it is possible for a politician to have. On going round this hospital, I was taken into the medicine storage cupboards, and the doctor told me that there was not nearly enough medicine available. I know there are plenty of medical stores available in the country, and probably this matter has nothing to do with the War Office, as the hospital is run by the Ministry of Health. The fact is that there was not sufficient medicine in the hospital for the troops there. My own opinion is that the Ministry of Health took the view that the hospital accommodated other patients than soldiers, and that if medicine was wanted, it could be obtained from the civilian store. The fact remains, however, that there was not sufficient medicine for the patients, and I suggest that that kind of administration ought to be looked into and that in all circumstances there ought to be available an adequate supply of medicine.
Another suggestion that I want to make has reference to the difficulty which is experienced by these hospitals in getting anything in writing. The medical staff at the hospital to which I have referred complained that whenever they asked what was to happen if there should be an epidemic and if they really needed the medical appliances, they were told by the official concerned, "That is all right; you will just get them." When the doctor wisely asked whether that could be put in writing, the answer was, "Oh, never mind about that; it is quite all right." I suggest that in order to make easier the relations between the officers of the Ministry and the officers responsible for the hospital administration, such things ought to be put in writing, and that there ought to be no difficulty in obtaining them in writing. The administration would then be much more satisfactory and much easier.
There are some hon. Members who think that Members of Parliament should discuss only big matters of principle, and that one should never raise small points. I do not take that view. If we are to make the democratic system a success and

show the world that it is a success, we must have the support of every man and woman in the country, and in order to obtain that support the democratic system must mean something to these people. We must be able to point out to them the advantages of democracy as compared with a totalitarian system, because people are very apt to say, "Of course, if there were a dictator, this thing would be put right immediately," without for a moment appreciating that none of the complaints would ever see the light of day under a dictatorship. But one cannot go on explaining that for ever. I am opposed to the idea of raising points in the House in order to obtain political popularity; I do not believe that is consistent with the dignity of the House or with the maintenance of democracy; but where there are legitimate grievances, if one can say to a man or woman, however small may be their position in life, that they have a legitimate grievance against the administration of the country by the responsible government of the day, and that that grievance shall be aired in Parliament, then they see that the democratic system does work, and that it means something to them very directly. I believe that is a very important spirit to engender in the minds of our people. Therefore, I make no apology for having raised the points which I have, and I hope that before long my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of smoothing out the difficulties, to the benefit of all concerned.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: There are one or two points that I would like to put to the Secretary of State for War. I do not intend to go into the general issues raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) about dependants' allowances. I take the same view as they do, and I feel very strongly that there should be an inquiry into the position. I have never been able to understand why you should penalise people when they happen to have a son serving in the Forces and when they themselves possess a few extra shillings. I cannot understand the philosophy which causes anybody to penalise such people. There has been great agitation in the country recently about Government waste, and indeed, the Government have bowed before that campaign and have


set up some kind of committee to supervise expenditure. I only wish the Government would immediately set up a committee to go into the question of pensions. I wish they would take the same interest in this as they are alleged to be taking in wages, because I feel that there are many flaws in the administration. I am not capable of judging of the efficiency of the War Office as a war machine, but I question whether they are the machine to pay allowances to the dependants of these men.
I wish, first, to raise this issue of payments to parents from an angle other than that of the dependence. In each case where a man has a son serving in the Army, unless the father is certified as being totally unfit for work—not merely sick for the time being, or for a period of six months, or anything of that kind, but definitely and permanently disabled —or else has reached the age of 65, no allowance can be paid to him. The father may have been unemployed for years. The authorities may have said to him in broad general terms, "You are practically unemployable, and we cannot find you a niche in society." That does not matter. Not a penny piece is paid to him. The son may have been the main contributor to the household. The father may have had very little work at all and may have had to work for a comparatively miserable wage. I have a relation now working in a Government Department, and his total wage is only £2 7s. a week, from which he has to pay 5s. in travelling expenses. That leaves him with an income of £2 2S. a week, out of which he has to keep children. In the case of such a man nothing could be paid, because he is not 65 years of age and is not permanently unfit for work. I say that regulation is entirely wrong.
I have also a case of a boy who was killed in the "Courageous." When he was alive that boy made a contribution of roughly 45s. a week to his parents' home. His wages ran to £3 3s. a week. He did not hand in all his wages, but kept about £1 a week for himself as most boys do. He did not lie about it. His wages were known to be £3 3s. and he paid 45s. a week into the household. His father earns only 34s. a week as a watchman, and he is not 65 years of age and is not permanently unfit. In that case no pension will he paid either

to the mother or to the father. I think that is terrible, and, as the hon. Member for West Willesden has pointed out, it is entirely different from what was done in the last war. Then there were two classes of pensions. There was the needs pension and what we called dependants' pensions. I say frankly that a pension should be granted to the parents in a case like that, based not merely on the boy's earning power, but on his future earning capacity if he had lived, which is equally important.
Further, I would say that the treatment of soldiers' wives is disgraceful. I have written to the Financial Secretary to the War Office on this matter. I think what is being done is in defiance of a deliberate statement made in this House by the Minister of Labour. Take the case of the woman whose husband is serving in the Army. For weeks or even months no allowance is paid from the Army. Under the law she applies to the Unemployment Assistance Board. May I say in passing that it is a terrible criticism of the inadequacy of the soldiers' allowances, that the Unemployment Assistance Board actually pays more to the woman than the allowance which she afterwards receives when her husband comes on to the strength of his regiment? With the means test and all the skill devoted to it, and with all the investigation that is carried out, the Unemployment Assistance Board still pay more on the ground of need than you pay to the soldier's wife. It is, I repeat, a terrible criticism of the system.
Then what happens? For three months perhaps—I have one case in which the period was 15 weeks—no allowance is paid to the woman towards the amount which she has received from the Unemployment Assistance Board. At last one day she gets a book of cheques or vouchers, something like postal orders, for the sum which is due—I think 35s. a week. But the first 15 vouchers or cheques are torn in half. No explanation is offered. No letter is sent. The book is just flung at her in that way. Why, you would not treat a dog in such a fashion. It is not fair. Remember that these women are our people just as much as any other section of the community. They are human. Last night I approached the Financial Secretary to the War Office, about this matter and he was.


as always, very courteous. I said to him then as I say now that this procedure is in defiance of the statement made in this House by the Minister of Labour. I looked up that statement in the time at my disposal which is limited because I had been engaged in trade negotiations for most of the day. I found that in answer to a question from a Labour Member, the Minister of Labour said it was not the practice for the Unemployment Assistance Board to recover allowances which had been paid. That was a definite statement and if the Financial Secretary to the War Office challenges me on it, I will look it up again, and give him the quotation. The statement was made quite recently and will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The point was raised by a Welsh Member on this side and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), with his usual quick. wit, also intervened on that occasion.
I ask the Secretary of State: What power has he to give this money to the Unemployment Assistance Board? By what right is it done? Where is the authority? The War Office has no right to act illegally and unconstitutionally in the case of a man who is away in the Army and whose wife is poor. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what law allows him to pay this money over to another body? I think that in Scotland' it is illegal. We passed an Act dealing with poor law in Scotland in which it was provided that once money had been paid out, where need was proved at the time, it was illegal to start an action to recover that money. It is true that in connection with workmen's compensation that provision was modified, but outside that, I contend there is no right to recover this money. What is being done at present is a shocking thing. Then, how do you know that the amount is correct? When the Unemployment Assistance Board say they have paid out a certain sum, how do you know whether that is right or not? Surely the woman who received the money has some rights in the matter. I know of a case in which you had to refund a women £2 because you had kept back £2 too much and I suppose if I had not raised the case, the money would not have been refunded. But the woman is never asked and nobody audits the account. If a counter-claim were made

against me for 15 weeks back money, I would insist on having an account rendered and a full statement of facts, but in this case there is nothing of the kind. I say such treatment of these people is shocking and indefensible and I am certain that if tested by an ordinary citizen in the Scottish courts, it would also be found to be illegal.
I want to raise another issue in connection with separated women, where you have the husband and wife separated for good or ill, and where they have chosen to lead their lives apart. I would not be their critic, but they have done it. When the son joins up his mother does not get a penny, but when he was in work he kept her. Because the father of the son is under 65, and is fit for work, the mother does not get a penny. Surely some arrangement could be made in such cases.
I want to raise a further question with regard to the illegitimate child. If a man wants to marry a woman who has an illegitimate child, that is his business and nobody else's. If he chooses to marry some woman—I do not take the view that the woman who has had an illegitimate child is a bad woman—I do not think that he has done anything wrong. In many ways men who do that are taking up an obligation that many would not like to have. He takes over the duties of keeping not only the wife, but the child, and the illegitimate child of this other man becomes his charge. If in our ordinary civil life that child was neglected, the mother could be imprisoned, but I am not sure about the position of the father. What happens is that the father keeps the child, and after a period of time he can apply for an order for adoption, but perhaps he does not do it, and he is in the Army. You refuse to pay for the child, although the Employment Exchange would pay for it if it is proved that the child has been maintained by him and no one else. Why will you not give it to him?
I want to raise the question of a man who has committed an offence in the Army such as getting drunk. I still think drinking goes on to a great extent in the Army, although not to the same degree as before; but occasionally soldiers do wrong things and they get gaoled. When they are gaoled the wages stop, and the woman's means are stopped to the extent of his allowance. I am informed that no other assistance can be obtained. The


Unemployment Assistance Board or the Poor Law cannot assist in spite of the fact that the allowance has been cut. I would say to the Secretary of State for War that he ought to allow that proportion of the husband's allowance to go to the mother and the children untouched. At least the children should not be allowed to suffer for their father's faults. The children we are all agreed should be lifted above the battle.
I see the Minister of Pensions in his seat, and I should like to mention the Cautley Committee which is appointed to deal with extra grants. If ever there was a hard-faced miserable committee, it is this committee; that is my experience of it. I have had cases where the Committee have refused where Poor Law authorities and the Unemployment Assistance Board would have given extra money. I would ask whether the hon. Gentleman could not look again at this body and see whether something more generous cannot be established. Frankly, I do not think they are meeting the case at the present time. The Secretary of State for War ought at once to consider and review all the allowances that have been paid. He should consider increases of the women's and children's allowances. I hope that in addition to his work as Secretary of State for War he will remember that he has also a terrible human task to do, so that in the years to come, possibly after the battles are forgotten, the work that he did for the women and children may live longer than some of the great battles.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Barr: This subject has been so impressively presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who opened the discussion, and those who have succeeded him that it almost needed some apology for intervention in this House. If I needed authority or reason for intervening, I might say that ever since the war broke out on every Friday I sit for three hours in my own constituency to meet dependants who have grievances and difficulties in regard to their allowances. In that way I have got to know what are their difficulties and, with the help of the Minister and of the letters I have received, the qualifications for an Army allowance. I am bound to say that as I read and study these regulations they seem to me to be designed rather to keep dependants out of the allowances than to facilitate their secur-

ing them. There are seven main regulations and I will state what they are in the terms of the Government. The terms of the regulations make it difficult after the allotment to obtain also Army allowances.
The first Regulation deals with cases of dependants where the average income of the household exceeds the qualifying amount under the regulations. Regulations 3 and 4 of Army Form 1700/I amount to this, that after making allowance for rent and rates there should be per head of the family an income of no more than 15s. That is, as my hon. Friend who introduced the discussion said, a strong form of the means test. The second of the regulations on which a dependant may be ruled out is that the soldier's qualifying allotment exceeds the amount of the award. If he gives a generous allotment, the result is that there is no need for an Army allowance. My hon. Friend gave an instance of an additional allotment of 3s. 6d. which obliterated the contribution to that extent of the Army. In that case the father of the man was unemployed. The third Regulation is most important. I have known a large number who have been ruled out of the allowance under it. It is that the contribution to the dependant by the soldier prior to enlistment was under the prescribed minimum laid down in the Regulations. It is laid down that he must have contributed a substantial amount. Take the case of a lad who was earning 20S. a week. It is argued that of that amount it is reasonable to suppose that he gave 16s. to the home. Then they say the dependant has no longer to keep the lad, and, therefore, 7s. comes off and 9s. is left. The allotment is 7s., and there is no award made in that case. That affects a large number. Does it not occur to the Minister that if that lad had been left for six months or a year, he would have been earning 25s. or 30s., but because of the temporary fact that he did not exceed 20s. at the time of his enlistment he is ruled out from an Army allowance?
The fourth of these regulations which has been fatal to a claim is that the dependant must be over the qualifying age, 60 in the case of a woman, and 65 in the case of a man, or be physically incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity or of age. Regulation five relates to what has been mentioned in connection with some of the other rules


and says that the deficiency of income could be met by an allotment from the soldier's pay if he desired to make it. The sixth is important and fair in itself. It is that any Army allowance is dependent upon the soldier making an allotment. I have seen a letter from a soldier in which he writes to his mother that he is not making any allotment. He made the mistake that by doing that, whatever his intention, he was not helping his mother and was hindering her from getting an Army allowance. The Seventh Regulation is that only one dependant can get an Army allowance in this way, so that if a mother has two sons serving, the allotment could be given in each case, but no Army allowance. I would like to confirm what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) about the scale of public assistance sometimes exceeding that which might be got under an Army allowance. Only last Friday the manager of the Unemployment Assistance Board and I advised a woman that she should not put in a pink form because she might lose 3s. or 4s. as the award might be for 4s., whereas she was now receiving 6s. from the Unemployment Assistance Board in addition to what she had from other sources.
That brings me to the subject of pensions so far as it is related to the subject that we are discussing. I wish to pay a tribute to the Minister of Pensions for his great courtesy to me in explaining in detail the principle on which these are operated and in putting it down in full form so that I might know the procedure and the regulations. I gather that until the formation of the Ministry of Pensions in the last war there was a system not unlike that which obtains now in some respects. One of the conditions was that pensions were granted to parents who had been eligible for separation allowance. With the setting up of the Ministry of Pensions in 1917, and the issue of the first Royal Warrant, there came in a new order and, in particular, the flat-rate pension. This flat-rate pension at the rate of 5s. a week was granted irrespective of pre-war dependence, age, infirmity, or pecuniary need. It was a condition, of course, that the lad must have been under 26 years of age at the outbreak of war or the date of joining the Colours. I wish to say in a personal note that I am

familiar with this pension because to this day my wife draws a pension at the flat rate of 5s. for the son we lost in the War. It was not given because of any need of relief but because there was such a flat rate. The lad was a student. He was bringing nothing into the home, and yet that rate was given.
There came a Select Committee on Pensions, 1919–1921, and in their report they set the pension on the basis of need. The Government of the day accepted that position, and the pensions became, as it were, needs pensions, and an announcement was made that other pensions would cease after 31st March, 1922. The present Royal Warrant and other authorities have accepted that principle, and it is a needs pension, one not given to all but only to those who can prove their need. There is one improvement on the old conditions, namely, that it is no longer necessary to prove that the recipient would have been eligible for a separation allowance. This also may be said for the present mode of operation, that if we are not giving it to all there may be more in hand to give to the more needy. I wish to point out that many dependants of the young men who are falling are getting nothing at all. I submitted to the Ministry the case of the first lad from the Burgh of Airdrie who fell. I am not sure of his age, but he would be about 19. He was an aircraft-man in the Royal Air Force. A suitable tribute to him was paid by the local paper the "Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser." He was referred to as "An Airdrie Hero," and every possible honour was done to his name in the circumstances in which he had given his life. But his dependants received no pension and this was the reason for it given by the Minister of Pensions:
A pension may be granted only if, among other conditions, the dependants are in pecuniary need and wholly or partly incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity. There is no provision for the grant of a gratuity or lump sum. The forms of application disclose that the father of the deceased soldier is in employment at a wage of £2 10s. a week.
That is not a very large wage, and the father and mother of that young hero, who was so prominent in the public eye, get no pension at all. This consolation, however, was held out by the Minister:
Should he (the father), however, later become incapacitated by permanent or prolonged infirmity I should be ready to have the case looked into afresh.


But suppose that 10 years go by and then incapacity arises. We have long known the difficulty of reviving an old case and getting a proper settlement later. I think I am fair in saying that I know what is the argument of the Government behind all this change. They say that at the beginning of the last war we were building, as it were, from the foundation. In this war we are beginning with a big load of debt and responsibility, and therefore we must economise. I think that pretty fairly sets forth their position. I say, with others, "Why introduce the means test here? Why spread it into this Department?" If I may say so without disrespect, I think the Government only prove that they have the means test on the brain and must apply it all round, though, in fact, they do not apply it everywhere. They did not apply it to tramp shipping, or to the landlords of Scotland in connection with the reconditioning of property. They say that we must economise, but when we think of how much lavish and wasteful expenditure there is in other directions we ask why they should economise upon the parents of these lads whom they are compelling to lay down their lives for their country. Unless some sweeping changes are made in these Regulations, there will be great and widespread disappointment in the country.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I hope that as a result of this Debate the Government will revise the machinery dealing with allowances and pensions. Since the war I have been snowed under by complaints about allowances and pensions, but in fairness I must pay a tribute to the way in which the Financial Secretary to the War Office has dealt with several of them. I have no desire to weary the House with a recital of many of these cases, and will content myself with dealing with only two which are very recent ones. The first is the case of a young man who was killed in China. He had been allowing his mother 10s. 6d. a week. He was the son of his mother's first husband, and she had married again. The stepfather earns only 45s. a week. It is true that two others contribute to the home, but if you deduct the cost of rent, rates, fuel, light, insurances, and so forth, there is very little left for food and clothing. The reply of

the War Office is to the effect that no allowance can be given unless the stepfather is either deceased or incapable of self-support on account of age or infirmity. Therefore, the mother not only loses her son but loses the allowance of 10s. 6d. a week that he was giving to her. The family is impoverished to that extent. The loss of 10s. 6d. a week is a big loss to a poverty-stricken home of that kind, and this is one of the cases which call, I think, for the machinery to be overhauled and something done.
The next case concerns a reservist. He is now in the Army. He was the breadwinner of the home. The colliery company by which he had been employed made a grant of 5s. a week to his parents; his father, I believe, had previously worked in the same colliery. The parents were put on a means test as war dependants, and the colliery company's grant of 5s. was taken into account. The father was very upset over it and wrote me a strong letter condemning what he called the meanness of the War Office. In effect, the colliery company is sub-sidising the State. The soldier's parents are no better off because of the grant made to them by the colliery company. To say the least, it is decidedly mean on the part of the State to deprive the parents of that 5s. granted by the colliery company. It discourages employers from giving help when otherwise they might be inclined to assist parents whose sons have been called up to fight for the country. I hope the Minister will take these facts into consideration.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I do not apologise for entering this Debate, but I must confess that I do so with rather mixed feelings. In the first place, I think it is our duty to the men who are fighting our battles that we should raise the question of their conditions and the conditions of their dependants. Having said that, I have a certain amount of regret when I realise that an unscrupulous enemy is calculated to use any points of difference there may be between us in this House to the disadvantage of this country. That is the effect of a cause, and the real cause is the bad treatment of the dependants of our serving men. That treatment can he remedied by the Government if they care to do so. My complaints come under three heads. The


first is that we ought to have a more
simplified method of applying for allowances. I think I shall be able to prove that point. The second is that there is a great deal too much delay in dealing with applications, and the third is that we should ask for more generous allowances to the dependants of these serving men. Those three points are put, in a letter which I have received, very much better than in any language of mine. The letter is short, and I venture to read it to the House. It is as follows
Dear Mr. Collindridge, I am writing you with regard to my extra allowance, for which my husband has made application and filled up a form in October of last year. Since then he has filled three more forms up, but I have heard nothing. The clerk from the U.A.B. office visited me in the beginning of December. Still nothing has been done. I think it is a downright shame that they take your workers from you but will not help you to keep their homes going while they are away. How can I pay 16s. a week rent, buy coal and light and also buy other things, and live on 24s. a week? Sir John Simon says, 'Let wages stand as they are.' How would he like to try to live on 24s. a week? I wonder whether he knows what it is to go without a meal like I have done? My husband and son are going overseas any time now. Can nothing be done to make things a bit better for me? I know that I am only one in a million. Do you think it is any encouragement for them to know that when they come home they have to start to pay off a debt of rent for which I am definitely unable to pay while they are away? I am a semi-invalid and my doctor has ordered me a diet of milk, meat and fish and plenty of nourishment. I cannot get them, and therefore my health is suffering.
There is clear evidence in that letter of the three points that I mentioned, namely, that complicated forms have to be filled up by applicants, that there is great delay, and that there ought to be a more generous allowance. It was October last year when the claim was first made, and only 24s. a week has been allowed to this lady. Out of that sum she has had to pay 16s. 3d. rent.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Has she applied to the War Grants Committee?

Mr. Collindridge: Yes, she has applied. There is a feeling in the district from which I come that the bad treatment of dependants is partly related to the country's allowing conscription to be inflicted upon it; in short, that because men are now legally compelled to go into the Army and you do not need to have re-

cruiting meetings and the urge for voluntaryism, you do not need to give inducements in the way of good treatment. I heard that point of view expressed very forcibly only a week ago, and I hope it is not true. Men who wage the country's battles to-day ought not to have worse treatment than those who fought for the country in past wars. The enemy being who he is and the rigours of war being what they are, surely men ought to have better treatment than formerly. In the early stages of this war we are tapping the very young manhood, who have often not the dependant claim of the men who enlisted in the early part of the last war, and we ought to be more generous to them.
In my constituency there are many cases of young apprentices who are on the threshold of manhood and who, instead of receiving a higher wage to enable them to make some return to their parents and their homes, as is the common practice, are being rushed into the Army without any regard being paid to that position. It is typical of a good many homes in Britain that, when young men get to their working life, their families launch into new commitments, such as larger houses or better furniture. The practice of the present Government of declaring that, unless the father is incapable of self-support, there shall be no allowance, is wrong. I have a particularly hard case that I want to mention of a lady and gentleman, the latter, unfortunately, unemployed. They have a son, a reservist, who, prior to the war, was contributing £3 a week to the household largely because his mother was seriously ill and required special nourishment. He goes to the war and makes an allotment to his people, but the Government declare, on the cold, cheerless form, that no allowance can be granted, because, it states:
your husband is disqualified on account of not having reached the age-limit.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the courtesy that they have received in letters from the Department, and that has been typical in regard to myself. I only wish that our people could have a little better form, even though the result were the same, than the one which I have in my hand and which was sent by the regimental paymaster. It has too many clauses of disqualification. It confirms the remark made by an hon. Member a


few minutes ago that the Department appears to seek to rule out cases instead of to accept them.
I have little else to add, but I would raise one more case of hardship. I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State on 4th December. I received a letter in acknowledgement on 5th January, intimating that the Department were sorry that pressure of work had delayed the matter. It referred to the case that I had brought forward from my constituency where the allowance had been applied for. The great feature of the letter was that, though there had been a month's delay, the claim had been accepted and the gentleman concerned was to receive his allowance, dating from 15th September, with arrears. The point that I make about it is that, although the Department was apprised of the situation, in the first two days of war, we had to get to January before the claim was accepted, and there was consequent suffering by the parties concerned.
I will conclude with this reference that I saw in the paper a few days ago. It refers to three serving men who lost their lives on the "Courageous." Two of them in this Northern town were sons of the same father and mother. News of their death was received, and an application was made for a pension for the parents; that application has been flatly refused. The second case is that of a seaman on the "Royal Oak." His father was an old-age pensioner. That application for a pension has also been refused. The third case is that of a stoker who went down on the "Courageous." Prior to the war he was the sole support of his parents, and that case, too, has been refused. I am sorry about cases of this description, in the first place because of the hardship and suffering inflicted upon these poor folk, and particularly because it weakens the national case for which we are fighting.
We on these benches feel that we are engaged in a justifiable struggle. We want to do all we can to resist Fascist aggression. But we realise that humanity is what it is and not what we want it to be, and if humanity is sometimes suffering raw deals like some of the cases I have mentioned, is it any wonder that there are some who are backward in accepting all that we have to say about our national cause? Incidentally, picture

this unscrupulous enemy of ours quoting some sentences from the speeches that we make from these benches about the treatment of our fighting men. I have a boy in France with the other lads. He will not be too heartened about this Britain of ours if he hears a recital of the bad treatment of our fighting men and if he hears from these benches, "We are sorry, but we have to do it." We seek no low or mean party advantage by the quotation of these things; it is because we feel that the morale, not only of the country but of the fighting men, will be improved that we ask the Government to alleviate the conditions of the people in regard to these allowances.

7.53 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War whether something cannot be done to simplify the forms issued. I am sure these forms are bewildering, not only to the men, but to the officers as well. If something could be done to simplify them, I think we should find that many of our difficulties would vanish, but do not let us be blind to the fact that many of the delays in regard to allowances are due to the nonobservance by serving men of the conditions and if the questions were more carefully answered much trouble would be avoided. Probably few people have criticised the War Office more than myself; in fact, I believe I am regarded in the War Office as an old offender, but one must be perfectly fair. Cases have been cited, and I give one of an officer who has been in France almost from the beginning of the war and who until a fortnight ago had received no pay. It seemed quite unjustifiable, but upon examination the delay was found to be due entirely to the fact that he had left one of the Services and at the end of three weeks had joined another; he had transferred from one branch to another. In the meantime he had gone to France. No new form had been filled up. When I was apprised of the fact that he had received no pay, it is only fair to say that a telephone message to the War Office resulted in an assurance being given that all arrears of pay would be put to the officer's credit in his bank within 48 hours. It was. I put a Question on the Paper, but for the convenience of the House it was unstarred because it occurred to me that one did not want to


ask supplementary questions upon it. The Question was:
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men are given full family allowances, and officers over 30 years of age receive a fiat rate; whether family allowances are granted at equal rate to officers, according to rank, whether there are children or not; and if, in making payment to officers, Income Tax is deducted at source?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1940; col. 238, Vol. 356.]
I hope the Secretary of State for War will take that matter into consideration.
I would like to make reference to men whose sons are serving. I have two sons, both of whom are serving as volunteers. In the case of my second son, whose age is 33, his family allowances were not forthcoming, but when upon investigation it was found that he had not troubled to forward a copy of the marriage certificate you cannot blame the War Office for that. The marriage certificate now having been deposited, I have no doubt his wife will receive 7s. a week or whatever it is. When she has managed to pay her bills there will be no change to lavish on diamonds or anything of that kind, but then my boys and their wives must be prepared to make sacrifices and undergo inconvenience and hardship like all the rest of us.
I rather deprecate the suggestion that men in the Services are treated badly, particularly by their officers. Again, I hope the House will forgive me if I relate my own family experiences. My boy writes:
The commanding officer is very strict, but he is very just, and that is all that matters.
No greater compliment could be paid to a commanding officer. The spirit of the troops is all right. My boy has written to me and expressed the hope that the King's Regulations would not be broken by a resolution passed by his comrades to the effect that in future when he specifies flooring it shall be free from knots because the dents made in their bodies by the knots on Monday night do not seem to be in the same place on any other night of the week. Through the whole of these letters there is a spirit of cheerfulness, sometimes gaiety, and all exhibit a spirit of determination to win through to victory. I am quite certain that the resolution and spirit of the troops to-day is good in every way, and that we ought to take a pride in the fact that our sons are

doing their duty, just as we tried to do our duty to the country in our own generation.

8 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: I must be forgiven if I express a tremendous feeling of disappointment at to-night's discussion, and at the very meagre attendance when such an important matter is before us. On occasions like this one regrets that there is such a thing as a political truce. This is a question that should be made one of principle, on which the Government ought to have to justify themselves or face the consequences in the Division Lobby. Otherwise, the whole thing is a farce. I wonder how many Members of Parliament are within the precincts of the House of Commons at the present time, when a matter of such vital importance to hundreds of thousands of people in this country is being discussed. The whole question of allowances bristles with inequalities, injustices, and anomalies; but that ought not to prevent the Government from facing the realities of the situation, and doing something like justice in the matter. I should like to see a by-election fought on the subject of the miserable allowances being paid to the dependants of soldiers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) rather indicated that the Government had overlooked the question of the allowances to be paid to the dependants of unmarried soldiers. I do not think that the question was overlooked; I think it was the considered policy of the Government, and that they have carried through this policy by deliberately producing those regulations without the knowledge of the House. It is a matter of great concern that so little should have been made of the matter this evening. This thing is too rampant, the discontent too widespread, for it to be allowed to rest there. There are many questions which must exercise the minds of Members of the House, many questions which give us a tremendous amount of work in our constituencies at the weekends. But there is a continuous flow of people coming to me every week-end, to point out the grievous injustices they suffer under these regulations. Dependants are receiving no allowances because sole dependency cannot be proved.
I must protest against the fact that the parents of many young Scotsmen who lost their lives in the "Courageous" and the


"Royal Oak" have been informed that they can receive no pension because they received no allowances. I noticed in one of our Scottish papers that on the same day that a message of sympathy was received by the mother of a lad who had lost his life she received notification that no pension could be paid. I do not know what is taking place in England, but in Scotland protests are being made all over the country against the loss of income which is being suffered by working-class families who are being reduced in many cases to the point of destitution through their main wage-earners being taken away. It is our duty to protest against such treatment of the parents of young men who have been drafted into the Army. In spite of our protestations of honesty and fair play, our protestations that we are not like other nations but believe in training all people fairly, it is said that we are, after all, a set of cheats and are prepared to place the burden of the war on the backs of those least able to bear it. This system of allowances is cheap and shoddy and an insult to the mothers of the working-class of this country.
How any Government can expect to have a contented Army when lads are being taken from their homes and from their employment, and the wages which provided comforts for their parents are being suddenly withdrawn, is one of the mysteries which cannot be easily explained. This goes to show how far removed the Members of the Government are from the actual conditions of life of the workers of the country. It shows with what callous indifference they can look upon the sufferings of the common people. I suppose that this is considered to be one of the penalties of war, and that working-class mothers should be looked upon as being among the first casualties in a world conflict. It is difficult to understand how these utterly inadequate allowances have been arrived at, otherwise than as a result of determination on the part of the Government that the poorest must make the highest sacrifices. I know of cases in my own constituency where parents have had to give up their sons who were earning £2, £3, or £4 a week, and no allowance can be made because of this absurd regulation that no allowance can be made when the weekly income of the dependants' household, after allowing for rent and certain other items,

reaches an average of 15s. per head, each child counting as half a person. I am not surprised that, after reading the regulations, parents are singing, "Land of Hope and Goering."
These regulations are causing considerable surprise and indignation in the country—surprise because of the absolutely different approach to the matter compared with that of 1914; indignation because of the miserable meanness displayed in the treatment of parents and other dependants. It is difficult to explain to parents that they are not entitled to an allowance when they remember that during the last war all that was required was proof that the soldier was contributing to the household and proof of his willingness to make an allotment from his soldier's pay. That was the total requirement then; it should be the total requirement now. You have no right whatever to deplete the family income to such an extent without making redress in some form or another. What justification is there, for instance, for taking a young miner, an artisan or a labourer from a household when he has only just commenced earning a journeyman's wage, after years of apprenticeship, and giving him nothing in return. Remember that in interpreting these cases you take everything. Many employers, especially local authorities, are allowing the difference up to 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the wages earned in industry or profession. This is some help to the parents, but in the case where nothing is allowed you are forcing the family back into starvation from which they have just emerged. It is morally and criminally wrong.
Have the Government ever heard of the alarming increase in the cost of living that has taken place since the outbreak of war? It is an increase that is not represented, as far as the workers are concerned, by the index figure of the Board of Trade, but it is an increase that is having a very serious effect upon the meagre incomes of the workers. Is it the opinion of the Government that the dependants of soldiers who are fighting in this war should go hungry and remain under-fed and undernourished, so that Income Tax should not again be increased? In his Mansion House speech the Prime Minister suggested that in times of trial we cannot guarantee that sacrifices are all going to be equal, but he said, taking his eyes from his manuscript and looking at his


comfortably fed audience, "If each one makes the sacrifice when the call comes to him, his own conscience will be clear." Has the Prime Minister been living so far from reality, is he really so ill-informed as not to know of the struggle in which millions of people in this country have to live even in normal times? Does he imagine that the masses have made no sacrifice and that the burden of the war has fallen solely upon his Mansion House friends? In applying these regulations they have stooped to tactics which would put to shame public assistance officials or means test investigators. They are harsh, brutal and inhuman.
I wonder whether the Government, when they are considering this question of perspective, have in the background the amount that has been paid during the last 20 years in pensions to dependants of soldiers killed in the last war. We are so often reminded that we have paid out no less than £1,500,000,000 in pensions to the dependants of those who made this enormous sacrifice. They gave all that they held dear—their lives. Do the Government intend to make the same mistake again? If millions are to be paid in pensions at the conclusion of this war, what will those millions be compared with the thousands of millions paid out in war interest? After all, the soldiers give their lives and end their existence in this world before they have hardly started to live. Millions have been paid in pensions in respect of services rendered and of lives surrendered. Millions have been paid out in war interest, which to a large extent has been a cruel fraud upon a gullible public.
We cannot profess to be surprised at the attitude of the Government, constructed as it is, a Government supported by all the vested interests in the country. Unless public opinion is expressed, there will be no improvement in allowances and no pensions, and there will be no improvement in the regulations that we are discussing this evening. This great Empire of ours has been built up on the point of the sword, and provision that has been made for soldiers' dependants is in keeping with the psychology of the Government.
There is a campaign raging in the country at the present time, designed for

the purpose of teaching the ordinary man of the street that this war is exacting such a fearful wastage of wealth that it must really be paid for by a lower standard of life by the people of this country. The campaign has been opened by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at the Mansion House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the City of Glasgow, in my own country. Both meetings have proved failures. The Mansion House meeting was a complete fiasco, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly did not cover himself with glory in St. Andrew's Hall at Glasgow. The Government would be well advised not to attempt, in some of these comic-opera gatherings, to lecture the rich people on the necessity of the sacrifices of the poor. It is surprising that Ministers, who address meetings such as that at the Mansion House or St. Andrew's Hall, when they are surrounded by friends and exploiters of every description, should forget that their words resound outside the special circle in which they speak. They let themselves go, as the two principal Ministers of the Crown let themselves go. They were remarkably candid. I do not think that I would be placing an undue strain upon the English language if I said that they were cynically and brutally frank. The Prime Minister hinted that we had reached the limit of taxation of the rich and that any further sacrifices required would be called upon from the poor. He warned us that it would be a mistake to tie up wages to a cost-of-living basis and that it would simply be unpatriotic to ask for increases of wages. If I took the same argument, I would say that it would be unpatriotic for soldiers to ask for increased allowances for their dependants. If that view is to be applied to the question of dependants' allowances, I am afraid that we shall get a raw deal.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister warned the country against complacency. May I take this opportunity, in conclusion, to warn the Government against complacency? That way means disaster. Under the guise of a semi-political truce you cannot ride roughshod over the rights of the people. The people of the country will not stand for it, and a decent measure of justice must be given to the dependants of soldiers who are called upon to fight.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: If the far from crowded House, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) has referred in some spirit of bitterness, will allow me, I would prefer to reply to the Debate in the spirit of the speeches that went first, and not in the spirit of the speech which we have just heard. It was, I think, the first time that I had heard a speech from the hon. Gentleman, which I imagined was so familiar to myself that certainly, had I closed my eyes, I might well have thought that I was not listening to the hon. Gentleman but to Lord Haw-Haw of Zeesen. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate and all other hon. Members who have spoken on both sides have approached this question in a very sympathetic spirit, and it is in that spirit that I want to reply for the Government. It would be idle to pretend that in the few days during which I have been in my new post it has been possible to go into the details of the complicated problem that we have been discussing to-night or that I should be in a position to give to the House anything but my own considered opinion. I appreciate that the question we have been discussing to-night is one of the most important that it is possible for this House to discuss. We have been discussing things which really touch the pocket of the ordinary man and woman, and whether maladministration, lack of appreciation, or over-rigidity may mean, not a loss of luxuries or a little money, but real hardship and grievance. In these cases we must all realise that to a large extent the morale of the various Services will depend upon whether they feel that not only themselves but those for whom they have affection, and have left behind, are being fairly treated.
I can assure the House that it is with a full sense of the importance of this subject that I have listened to the Debate to-night. I am not—and I do not think the House will expect me to do so—going to give anything like definite or final answers to many of the questions raised, although I shall refer to a number of points which have been brought up. I feel that the whole of this matter requires the personal investigation of whatever Minister is to answer to the House, and I intend to go not only into the actual complaints raised during the Debate but into the whole of the system, in order

to satisfy myself of what is right so that I can defend it in my own conscience. To begin with, there is one general observation that I should make. Nearly all of us are agreed on the two extremities. All would agree that to put forward to this House and the country a system of dependants' allowances and ring it round so tightly with conditions as to make it inoperative would be intolerable. It would be deceiving the House and the country. On the other extremity, the Government have never pretended that this system, or any other system which it would be possible to devise under these circumstances, is one that would ensure that war would make no difference to the position of anyone concerned. It would be an attitude impossible to adopt and sustain. War is going to make a difference, and has made a difference, and no amount of speeches in the House can prevent a difference in the circumstances of a great number of people in this country.
But between these two extremities all of us want to see a system which will work as fairly and as expeditiously as possible, and which will relieve these cases of grievance, need, and hardship. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who speaks on the subject with great restraint, but with great authority, called my attention to a number of points which I will certainly look into. I cannot, however, feel that it would be possible to dissociate payment of allowances at this time entirely from the circumstances of those who would be recipients. We are here dealing with quite a different problem from that of the means test and allowances. The Army of to-day takes into its ranks people from all kinds of financial strata. It takes people of wealth and culture as well as those who are poor, and there will be many relations of those serving in the ranks to-day in such financial circumstances that we should find it quite impossible to justify the State making an extra contribution. I cannot for a moment hold out to hon. Members opposite any hope that I should feel it right, in the granting of these allowances, that no question of the necessity of the recipients should arise.
There is one point which the hon. Gentleman made and which seemed a prevalent mistake throughout the Debate. There is an assumption that the de-


pendant of a man who is killed is not entitled to receive and cannot receive a pension unless the dependant at the time of the man's death was receiving a dependant's allowance. That is not, of course, correct. There are conditions which have to be observed if pensions are to be granted, but they are conditions which, looked at at the time of death, should have no necessary relation to the fact of whether a dependant's allowance is being paid or not.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that, to my own knowledge, I have never yet come across a case where no allowance has been granted, but that the decision has been that there is no pension if there is no allowance?

Mr. Stanley: In comparison with the last war the number of fatal casualties has not been very large, but I am only stating the fact that under the regulations there is in fact no necessary and essential link between the payment of dependants' allowances and the granting of a pension.

Mr. Sloan: If there is no allowance what justification is there for not paying a pension?

Mr. Stanley: As I say, if they fulfil the conditions of payment at the time of death the mere fact that no dependant's allowance has been paid does not invalidate a claim for pension.

Mr. Ammon: Does that mean that if subsequently parents fall into privation they are competent to apply for a pension?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for asking the question.

Mr. Maxton: Does the investigation of the Ministry of Pensions take place quite independently of that of the Army authorities when they are fixing whether a dependant's allowance is to be paid or not?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions says that they are quite independent. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, quite apart from dealing with these broader questions, also raised some important points with regard to the actual administration. He attached considerable importance, and I think rightly,

not only to the actual administration but to the form of it. It is not only a question whether a letter says "yes" or "no," but the way in which the letter says "yes" or "no"—the actual way in which explanations are made to people as to why it is not possible to give an allowance now or what the amount of the allowance should be. I agree with him that it is of very considerable psychological importance and I will include that in my inquiries.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they do not write letters to people in lead pencil? I have one now from the office in Edinburgh written in lead pencil, and while the right hon. Gentleman may read it because he is much cleverer, the people who receive these letters cannot read them.

Mr. Stanley: I might be able to read the letter, not for the reason given by the hon. Member but because for something like 40 years I have had to read my own writing. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) raised the difficult question of parents who may have incurred a debt in order to give their son an extra education in the expectation that in time he will be able to pay it back, and that just at the moment when he is able to make a contribution he is called up or joins the Army and no allowance is payable. That I realise is an important subject and one which I will investigate. The actual case which he mentioned seemed to me a typical case for the War Services Grants Committee. We recognise that whatever may be done in the way of standard allowances there will be certain cases where the circumstances of the family are such that the blow will fall much harder than anywhere else, and that these cases cannot be dealt with by any hard-and-fast system of administration and can be dealt with only by a discretionary inquiry into each case. That is a service which the War Services Grants Committee perform, and I cannot believe that they approach their task with the hardest of hearts as stated by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Buchanan: I will send you pages of them.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member is the possessor of the warmest of hearts and perhaps judges the hearts of other people


by his own, but certainly it is the desire of the Government that the War Service Grants Committee, whose discretion is so essential an aid to the general scheme, should administer the scheme not in the spirit of trying to find a way out of giving an allowance but in a genuine desire, as is, in fact, I am sure done, to meet cases of hardship when they arise. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) made an interesting speech in which she covered a number of widely separated points. She dealt with the question of the delay in payments to separated wives under a court order. She will realise that some delay is difficult to avoid, because when it is a question of a soldier the case has to be considered by the military authorities. Under the law they have a discretion as to the decision, but instructions have been sent out to the authorities to ask them to expedite the examination of these cases and also to expedite as much as possible the exercise of their discretion in the stoppages.

Miss Ward: Are they going to report to the Secretary of State for War? That is very important. If they know that they have to report to the Secretary of State for War it would make all the difference to the expedition in which the cases are dealt with. I have great faith in the War Office in a variety of directions, though not in all.

Mr. Stanley: I am told that the actual case which the hon. Member mentioned was settled to-day. She also raised the question of reductions in rank, resulting, of course, in a decrease of payment to the wives, and she quoted a case where the recovery of the overpayment which had occurred owing to the delay, was made at a rate which really reduced the weekly payment almost to nothing. I agree with the hon. Lady that a sudden reduction to that amount in one week should be avoided wherever possible. I understand that instructions have been sent to the effect that any recoveries should be made at a reasonable rate, and I will inquire fully into that and see that it is done. The rest of the hon. Lady's speech dealt with subjects which are somewhat alien to the matter we have been discussing. I know that she has already been given an answer to all the questions she raised with regard to the War Office by the high officer who is responsible, and so perhaps

she will excuse me from answering them again. With regard to the beds of which she made great play, I have made inquiries and I understand that beds of similar types are being used now in Government Departments by civil servants who from time to time have to spend the night in the office, and I understand that one is about to be used in a few hours by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff himself, who has so far suffered no ill effects from it.
The hon. Member for Gorbals said that, although he was entirely in agreement with the broad point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, he did not intend to follow his hon. Friend, but wanted to deal with specific cases of minor, but nevertheless considerable, importance. One case which he raised was the case where there is a delay, where the Unemployment Assistance Board has had to be appealed to in the interval, and then, subsequently, the allowance has been granted. I cannot agree that there should be a period during which the State is paying twice, although through different channels. I do not think the hon. Member would say that, when it comes to paying arrears of the allowance which is finally granted by the State, that sum must not be added to what the State has already paid through another agency, namely the Unemployment Assistance Board. I will, however, look into the question of how this is done, and particularly whether it is possible to include some kind of statement as to the net loss and gain, and also do something in order that the recipient, if she thinks there has been some mistake in the amount of the payments of the Unemployment Assistance Board which have been charged against her allowances, shall be notified of it, and be able to take it up in order to have the mistake rectified.
The question of the illegitimate child of a woman who has subsequently married the soldier seems to me to be a very difficult and hard case. I confess it is one that I have not heard of before, and certainly it is one which I will consider. As to the deserter or the man in prison who suffers a stoppage of pay, I understand that problem was under consideration at the War Office before I went there, and certainly I will go into it personally. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collingdridge) is not in the Chamber. He did not make


any particular point to which I wanted to reply, but I should have liked to congratulate him upon his speech and the spirit in which he spoke. Quite obviously, like other hon. Members who have spoken, with one exception, he wanted to redress grievances and not merely to make political capital. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) raised two individual cases rather than matters of general importance. Perhaps he will give me the full details and allow me to look into them, and reply to him personally. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) seems to have anticipated that my answer to him would be so unsatisfactory that it was not worth waiting for.

Mr. Lawson: May I say that I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been present all the evening listening to the Debate; I say that especially in view of the very heavy duties that fall upon him. There is one point I would like to put to him before he concludes. Will he give serious attention to paragraph (8, c) which practically rules out all single men from serious consideration for allowances? I am certain that, as far as single men are concerned, everything swings upon this paragraph.

Mr. Stanley: When I say that I will give consideration to it, that is what I mean; I do not mean that I am giving a promise. I realise that probably the hon. Gentleman is right, and that this is about the most important of the con-

ditions that have been discussed. All these questions of allowances are matters which the House of Commons should discuss from time to time. They are matters which should be kept constantly under review. Circumstances alter and difficulties appear, and no one, even if for a moment he is satisfied, should complacently think that everything is all right. A good deal has been said about pensions. My hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions tells me that he has been referring many of these questions that have been mentioned to his Advisory Committee, and is now awaiting their report; because he, too, knowing the feeling that has been expressed, wants to satisfy himself either that he can completely defend what has been done, or, if he cannot do that, to alter it. I have given the same pledge to the House. I have not pledged myself to this or that reform or alteration, but what I have pledged myself to is a personal investigation into the whole of the system; and a promise that I can give to the House is that I will not defend either the continuance of a particular item in the scales or the administration unless I personally am satisfied that I can do so with a good conscience.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Nine o'Clock, until Tuesday next, 23rd January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.